ex- SN, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20220904
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-140 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	            	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20120424	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20140502	Highest Rank/Rate:  EM3
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  09  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  81
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance: 2.2 (4)   Behavior: 2.0 (4)   OTA: 2.08 

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

NJP:  2

- 20131003:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR   Suspended:  RIR  

- 20140328:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR  Suspended:      

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	  “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)”
	  “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 40, effective 21 July 2012 until 10 November 2021, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends her discharge stemmed from one series of minor infractions that do not outweigh her two years of otherwise honorable service.

Discussion

Date:  20230525		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

As a result of the Applicant’s claim 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.  
As a result of the Applicant’s claim PTSD/TBI was based in whole or in part on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse, the NDRB obtained a review by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with PTSD/TBI or other trauma.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  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 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) (x2)

:  The Applicant contends her discharge stemmed from one series of minor infractions that do not outweigh her two years of otherwise honorable service.

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

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

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

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

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/ behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes, at least an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Mood (Depression and (acutely phobic?) Anxiety and Conduct) or a possibly prolonged prodromal period to her later diagnosed Schizophrenia and affective spectrum disorder condition.  	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, minimally the Adjustment Disorder	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes, though, only casually acknowledged on Separation Physical Examination	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
“My Name is [Applicant], from. I have been involved with the love of discovery and creation since I could learn. I have been happy to have joined, a service for country came strongly to my positives. I am glad to have a good courses of educational teachings, that allowed me to gain a good score for job placement. In the spring that I joined the Navy, I was very worked to the core, glad to gain the muscle, and the lessons on the job training with computer animated education powerpoints. Once I had the chance to let some company be close, I had no good experience. The sailors had been in they're jobs longer and I had been in my post shorter. My health concerns have allowed doctor visits to explain to me a Bipolarity condition and a schichophrenia condition, documents and medicinal trials with prescription treatments are apart of my daily supplements, for behavior and social interaction with strangers and family.
Unidentified, during my service, mental health issues undiagnosed caused me to question and over speak at First class Petty Officers for they're denial of my request to down my equipment before the crew; and later, my undiagnosed condition lead me to be less recollective and descriptive towards First class Petty Officer while in her skivvies. I did want to have a chance to take my air tank off, while having successfully seen the crew thru the drill; as an electrician, having let the proper maneuvers show and having the pain of strain pushing thru my body, I could not ignore my need to let so pressure from the weight of my air tank down to the floor. Pain and flare of mental aggression, of bipolarity spectrum highs and lows was causing a poor reaction to challenging service moments. I am today working well with others, and utilizing opportunities after the pandemic to aide the companies and communities I am near, with the Navy training and understanding of my self thru treatment and psychiatry and the behavior I let follow words.  [During PAH, she also shared having been consistently required to wear the heaviest air tank (75 lbs) SCBA gear might have represented an act of being “hazed” but not certain].
Thank you for your service. Thank you for reading.
[Applicant]”

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

DOB—28 Feb 1988

Age 5:  Reported victim of Childhood Sexual Trauma, the psychological residuals of which lead to referral for psychiatric evaluation and treatment during adolescence. 

Education Level:  12
May 2006— “

“Jun 2005 [starting in 12th Grade?] – 
Package Handler 
Examine contents and compare with records, such as manifests, invoices, or orders, to verify accuracy” 

Aug 2006 – May 2009:  
Student Aid
Analyze internal processes and recommend and implement procedural or policy changes to improve operations, such as supply changes or the disposal of records.
Monitor the facility to ensure that it remains safe, secure, and well-maintained.

May – July 2008—
Youth Intern
•  Observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics.
•  Adapt teaching methods and instructional materials to meet students' varying needs and interests.

Feb – Mar 2012—

•  Review orders for completeness and according to reporting procedures and forward incomplete orders for further processing.
•  Check inventory records to determine availability of requested merchandise. “

14 Feb 2012—MEPS Process:  
AFQT:   81
“MARIJUANA…Last used 2009 (1x total)" 

24 Apr 2012—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 24

18 May 2012
Released w/ Work/Duty Limitations: Profile: joint pain, localized in the right shoulder from 18 May 2012 to 20 May 2012;
Comment: Arm rest
Follow up: 3 day(s) in the REU clinic or sooner if there are problems.

21 May 2012—USS Tranquility AHLTA Sports Medicine PA-C note:  
History of present illness
The Patient is a 24 year old…SR with 2 days of atraumatic shoulder pain after IT exercises. SR hx of MVA in which she had her right side slammed into the side…of the car. Had pain to the lateral chest wall for a month and no medical care. Pain is less today after rest and motrin.'
Medication list reviewed.
In the Navy and currently on active duty undergoing boot camp DOT:2-2.
Musculoskeletal symptoms (See note). Shoulder joint pain on the right, when actively moved, feels better after rest, and shoulder joint stiffness.  No inconsistent or changeable symptoms.
“Psychiatric:…Euthymic…”

05 Sep 2013—OFFENSE:

10 Sep 2013—OFFENSE:

03 Oct 2013—CAPT’S MAST:

09 Oct 2013—AHLTA Note:  “No psychological symptoms.”

27 Feb 2014—“OFFENSE REPORT[:]

    *
“2.

Details of the Offense (PRINT):

On February 27, 2014 EMJ [Applicant] disobeyed an order by removing her SCBA [Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus] during General Quarters. After being told numerous times by a DCTT [Damage Control Training Team] Member, EMl X and PSC X, she refused because another Electrician EMJ  did not have his SCBA on. We turned to EMJ [Applicant] and told her not to worry· about what's going on with the next SVM and that we are training her the right way as a Repair Electrician. EMJ [Applicant] refused to put the SCBA on and made a scene during General Quarters even after PSC X pulled her aside and told her she needs to listen and put the SCBA on. I told EMJ [Applicant] to stand down because she did not have on the required Personal Protective Equipment to be trained correctly. We continued with the drill and left EM3 [Applicant] at the locker and went to isolate the space for the Bravo Fire drill scenario. Upon arrival to Repair Locker 2 I found EM3 [Applicant] sleeping in the male lounge during General Quarters. After getting her attention she got an attitude and so I dismissed her, told her she is being inappropriate and that this is not the right way to conduct business while at General Quarters.”

APOLOGY:  “This letter is to respectfully apologize for my decorum during the February 27, 2813 General Quarters training. I felt discriminated against due to the fact that you instructed me to remain in a dressed manner that was not identical to the senior third class petty officer EM3 X, whom [sic] as repair party electrician, described wearing a self contained breathing apparatus as unsafe. Furthermore after his safety advisement of proper electrical safety dress I felt that your order, to wear the scba was life threatening, especially because you, being repair locker two's defense systems approach to training,  would not instruct myself and EM3 X of the proper uniform procedure after I requested your knowledge and advisement of the difference in dress. Now that DC1 X has trained us on the proper dress to adhere to during training to as a repair party 2 repair party electrician unit, I will don full scba to transit thru boundaries and remove the apparatus when responding to electrical isolation spaces where flooding has been reported.”
[bolding added for emphasis]

23 Mar 2014—Applicant’s statement to charges:   (See above)

- 20131003:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR     Suspended:  RIR     

17 Mar 2014—PRELIM INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT:

“4. Interview of the Accused:
After interviewing EMJ [Applicant] leadership and review of accused division officer record… She has a long documented history of disrespect toward Senior Leadership and was awarded NJP in Sept 'Ober 26, 2013 for violation of article 91 for like misconduct.
Member was reluctant to Speak with me on the matter but cooperative overall. ·Not very open to any of my questions and believes she ls being hazed and discriminated against. I found no evidence of her claims during my interviews with her leadership or peers. Member has worked within 4 different departments aboard the Reagan since 2012 and had complications with leadership and peers alike.

- 20140328:	Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer) 
	Awarded: RESTR EPD RIR

29 Apr 2014—SEPS Exam:

 02 May 2014—DISCHARGE:
ENLISTMENT Details:
 Highest Rank/Rate:  EM3
Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 2.2 (4)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.0 (4)   OTA: 2.08

POST SEPARATION:

May 2015…

ADDITIONAL SKILLS
•  Train, schedule, assist, and revise team evolutions.
• Foreign Language Proficiency.

15 Jun 2015—“PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION [“7 Counties Services’ Inc.…signed by an “MD”] handwritten form

Family Hx:  

 ADJ DISORDER VS CD vs SCBA CLAUSTROPHOBIA OR ANY PHOBIA

IF AS ASSERTED IN TESTIMONIALS THAT APPLICANT’S BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSIDERATE ETC., SUGGESTS MORE ADJUSTMENT DISORDER THAN CD, per se.

 

CUlnnt        Medications         

COMMENT:  

The Applicant gave a developmental background history of having been the victim of Childhood Sexual Trauma (CST) Abuse at age 5 and having been “a good student” (except for an incident of disciplinary action due to fighting), as well as having become engaged in outpatient psychiatric treatment (related to residuals of above CST) and a “good student” (except for a disciplinary action noted elsewhere) with the ambition to become an attorney.  Post high school graduation activity included a number of years of college without achievement of a degree.  Enlistment in the Navy appears to have been motivated by a desire for self-betterment including educational opportunity.  At her PAH, both written and, particularly, oral communication style was characterized by a rambling quality that was difficult to follow, and involving appeared a bit idiosyncratic, including circumstantiality and over-inclusiveness.  
After an initial period of notable success, she began to experience adjustment related to communication difficulties resulting in nominal mutual misunderstandings. A closer look at her personnel record strongly suggests her interaction, as typified by the pivotal 27 February 2014 offense of removal of her SCBA gear suggests a combination of anxiety over a risk of being harmed and discomfort due to her ongoing neck, arm and back pain documented in her health record.  The situation may have been further aggravated by misunderstandings related to her currently demonstrated idiosyncratic communication style including over-inclusiveness and prolonged circumstantiality which she acknowledges and now attributes to her much later diagnosed “Schizophrenia…,” (reportedly improved on prescribed Aripiprazole (Abilify)).  The foregoing, along with the relatively limited nature of her offenses suggests a mitigating nexus between her Misconduct and, at the very least, an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Mood (Depression and (acutely phobic?) Anxiety) and Conduct or a possibly prolonged prodrome of her later diagnosed Schizophrenia and affective spectrum disorder. 	

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.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct; her mental health diagnosis; the nexus between her minor incidents of insubordinate conduct and her mental/emotional stability; and the severity of her conduct in relation to her discharge characterization.  The Applicant served just over two years in the Navy, maintained fair evaluation marks with an OTA of 2.08 across four reports, two of which reflected her misconduct, and was awarded a National Defense Service Medal, and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.  The Board took note that during one of the incidents in questions, it is reasonable to believe the Applicant’s contention that she was in physical pain by not being allowed to doff a 45 lb. fire-fighting rig when she herself weighs 135 lb., as later addressed by her medical treatment for neck, arm, and back pain, somewhat mitigating her insubordinate response to being told to keep her gear on during debrief when other sailors were allowed to doff theirs.  As reviewed in the Medical Board Member Opinion, her CST may have also contributed to mental health issues that later played a mitigating role in her incidents of insubordinate behavior.  Other than the two NJPs for Article 91 violations, the Board found no other negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty to outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  Consequently, the Board discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service given liberal consideration.  Consequently, the Board voted to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge.  

Thus, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues exonerated the willfulness/failure to comply with military discipline and thus a change in the characterization of service to Honorable 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 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-3P.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

Service [VA] Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety, equity, and clemency of a discharge.  Consequently, the Applicant should petition the VA, which determines eligibility for post-service benefits.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  (See www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions).  Therefore, if the NDRB grants a change to a discharge, the NDRB will notify the Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate; however, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Further, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit these changes to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.  Finally, the Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website (https://www.va.gov/) for information regarding VA benefits and healthcare.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost – including inpatient or crisis residential care for up to 30 days and outpatient care for up to 90 days.  Veterans do not need to be enrolled in the VA system to use this benefit.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance with determining VA eligibility/access, the Applicant should refer to https://www.va.gov/find-locations. 

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

Reenlistment/RE-code: The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE-CODE” is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suicide Prevention: Veterans in emotional crisis or their loved ones can call the free and confidential Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-8255 (then press 1); or chat online at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net, or send a text message to 838255 to connect with a caring, qualified Veteran Affairs Responder who can deal with any immediate crisis.  Additionally, Veterans in acute suicidal crisis can go to any VA or non-VA health care facility for emergency health care at no cost; you can use this benefit regardless of your discharge status, or enrollment in VA health care.  In order to find the nearest VA office to receive assistance, go to https://www.va.gov/find-locations/?facilityType=health.