ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20221002
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT
Reentry Code change to: RE-1

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20141215	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20171002	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  18  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  55
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.2 (NFIR)

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20170404:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: FOP RESRT EDP RIR Suspended: FOP

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20170404:	For NJP date 20170404, violations of article 112a 

- 20160114:	For eligibility but not recommended for promotion due to lack of good judgement and maturity. 

- 20170404:	For eligibility but not recommended for promotion due to NJP.  

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):20190930	
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD19-00191
NDRB Documentary Review Findings: Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	 Narrative Reason for Separation should read:  “MISCONDUCT”

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.	The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until present, Paragraph 6210.5, 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 his discharge was unjust because the Commanding Officer recommended he be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.
2.	The Applicant was diagnosed with a mental health condition while in service.
Discussion

Date:  20230410		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 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 

Issues 1-2:  The Applicant contends his discharge was unjust because the Commanding Officer recommended he be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service; and further the Applicant was diagnosed with a mental health condition while in 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 did not 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 a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Technically No, due to refusal to submit to a SARP evaluation; though, clinically suspect he would qualify for Alcohol Use Disorder, by now and possibly an Adjustment Disorder as well.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Uncertain (see above)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Not Applicable	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
 	Medical Board Member comments:	PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

 Education Level:  12 “…felt he floundered a bit in High School with attraction to athletic pursuits.

AFQT:  55
15 Dec 2014—ENLISTMENT:
PAH testimony recounted positive experiences from BOOT CAMP, SC: Straining mentally but did well…CAMP GEIGER, SC:  School of Infantry.
Testimony:  “Awesome experience; learned Machinegunery [etc.]…”

27 Aug 2017:  DWI.

14 Sep 2017—SARP Screening AHLTA note:  

“The patient was seen on this day for a screening as part of a SARP assessment for degree of substance abuse and possible Level of Care for this program. The patient is a 21 year old, single, Caucasian male, PFC, with the USMC. The limits of confidentiality were reviewed with the patient prior to this screening and the patient verbalized an understanding. The patient filled out all the SARP paperwork but refused treatment, because he is going to be administratively separated by the USMC and wants to get his 10 day letter and go home to FLA. He reports that he can get a job landscaping, due to the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. His Audit Score is a '1' and his PHQ-8 is a '0'. He does report no SI/HI at this time, but unable to assess any further for diagnosis.  Mental Status Exam: The patient is alert and oriented on all spheres and dressed in UOD with good hygiene. He has a full range of affect, congruent with his mood, and maintains good eye contact. His speech is logical, linear, and goal directed with no
abnormalities of thought content or processes noted. He presents with no psychosis or mania and normal psychomotor activity. He has no suicidal or homicidal thoughts, plans, urges, or intentions and presents with no suicide or homicide at this time.
Treatment recommendation: The patient has refused to continue with the SARP
Screening and any further treatment.” 

13 Sep 2017—AHLTA SARP Entry Note:
“Counselor Note, in brief: Joshua is a Single…male with approx 2 yr(s), 6 mo(s) CAD/USMC/PFC; duty station currently 2/2/ DIV/ CLNC. Patient's POC cell…After confirming the Limits of Confidentiality were read, understood, signed & that pt was electing to refuse treatment, voluntarily, the screening was halted/unable to proceed &/or assess further; The following were Self-administered w/SARP provider & reviewed: AUDIT = 1 , PHQ8 = 0 & source of information was patient & collateral records available at screening: appears incomplete Command Profile & appears here for Substance Related Incident(s) involving Alcohol & other Drugs (Cocaine), see copy in file & AHLTA Notes were available. This visit does not appear GWOT related @ this time: & reported combat tours = NONE. This appears to be 2d lifetime referral/ attempt: Pt reports seen by MCCS SACC back in AUG 2017 following self reported cocaine use, NG UNK & believes either no recommendations or if any, also refused; MH / MED sx: see SARP LIP &/or see AHLTA notes/history as noted by providers; Substance Abuse Hx: At this time pt elects to sign Treatment Refusal & unable to assess for reported cocaine/ alcohol use; pt reports is pending ADSEP due to pattern of misconduct/ drug use following CID investigation & self reported cocaine use & Cocaine ng unknown & pt reports no UDS conducted; pt reports and presented copies of on base DWI, BAC refused & believes FL driving privileges will not be impacted and is declining SARP DWI Services as well & verbalized understanding of refusal consequences & was facilitated to meet with SARP DWI Services and SARP LIP; At this time efforts to engage pt in own treatment/ recovery process appeared unsuccessful & unable to assess based on current DSM 5 & unable to denote criteria for SUD: Alcohol & Cocaine = suspected & unable to assess / determine criteria met due to pt refusal & unable to assess pt placement criteria for treatment level; PLAN is to continue with ADSEP & to r/o further intervention if non-compliant/ unable to comply with recommendations/ applicable orders/ mandates; pt verbalized understanding of recommendations and is to meet w/ own MED/MH / DAPA or SACO to follow up &/or schedule to meet w/ SARP provider(s) if symptoms persist / worsen while awaiting DSEP; pt signed & was provided a copy of VA Treatment Refusal / Rights; Case briefed w/ SARP LIP/ DWI Services; Complete screening is documented in AHLTA/HAIMS electronic record(s).

The patient was seen on this day for a screening as part of a SARP assessment for degree of substance abuse and possible Level of Care for this program. The patient is a 21 year old, single, Caucasian male, PFC, with the USMC. The limits of confidentiality were reviewed with the patient prior to this screening and the patient verbalized an understanding. The patient filled out all the SARP paperwork but refused treatment, because he is going to be administratively separated by the USMC and wants to get his 10 day letter and go home to FLA. He reports that he can get a job landscaping, due to the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. His Audit Score is a '1' and his PHQ-8 is a '0'.  He does report no SI/HI at this time, but unable to assess any further for diagnosis.”

02 Oct 2017—DISCHARGE:
- 20170404:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded: FOP RESRT EDP RIR Suspended: FOP

The Applicant, testified as to the following assignment scenarios:  Philippines deployment…Mount Fuji training…ROK Marines rotation… Okinawa-allowed to relax…Advanced Guns scheduled (but may not have occurred); activities included being tasked to be a Squad Leader.”
Also reported by the Applicant: “Injured self on liberty at one point; injury, reportedly Hip Injury required RX/TX.”
 
POST SEPARATION:

PAH testimony:  “Floundered quite abit.  Initially worked as a “Camp Counselor…really enjoyed it…moved back home…food & beverage [related work]…moved to FL Logistics Company…COVID …Chicago…not the best…corporate life…back home to FL…Construction admin type…worked in Wrigley bldg…Sep28 Florida Hurricane  FL [mother’s] home under water…felt urge to help… FL…Fort Myer with buddy…2 months of helping victims… restoration…Mom moved to Hilton Head…[currently] works in construction …” Apparently, with no current romantic attachment as he had reached an unresolvable stalemate with former geographically remote girlfriend (neither willing to move to the other’s geographic location).  Survived a serious one car accident (driving too fast and apparently after consuming alcohol) for an ‘S’ shaped curve)—had to crawl out a broken window in his car to escape—emerged virtually unscathed; aware of ETOH dangers; feels he manages situation well without therapy, including AA.  Generally, content with lifestyle; loves to spend time with nature in the company of his nephews and dogs; would re-enlist in USMC were he given the opportunity.

COMMENT:  This review process is relatively impaired by incomplete submission of Service Treatment Records, Personnel records, and civilian (including any VA diagnosis and treatment records) as well as the Applicant’s unwillingness to undergo the complete SARP offer to evaluate and treat as indicated.  Nonetheless, the available records suggest he would, likely, qualify for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder and, possibly, a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder as influencers of what might be characterized as poor health decision making on his part.  Nonetheless, while, technically, not qualifying for Liberal Consideration under Kurta/Wilkie guidance, given the indication his immediate Commanding Officer had determined the Applicant’s characterization of discharge be General (Under Honorable Conditions), his DD Form 214 be changed, as he requests, to reflect same as a matter of propriety and equity. 	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included one nonjudicial punishments for violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ; this was a failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his Mental Health Diagnosis was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record diagnosis of a Mental Health Diagnosis, coupled with additional post-service documentation provided by the Applicant, support the Applicant’s contention that his Mental Health Diagnosis was a mitigating factor associated with the in-service misconduct.  Though the Applicant may feel that a Mental Health Diagnosis was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  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 his actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that a Mental Health Diagnosis did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.

However, 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 Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct and also his overall service which included his enlistment Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.2 and 4.2.  The Board also considered that his misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his entire career.  The NDRB did note that the Applicant was honest when interviewed by NCIS and worked with them on the investigation into the significant drug use going on in the Battalion.  Additionally, the Applicant admitted his wrongdoing and willfully accepted his punishment.  Furthermore, the NDRB noted that his Commanding Officer recommended him for a General discharge.  This was likely due to his solid performance as an infantry leader both in garrison and while deployed.  While the Commanding Officer’s recommendation is just that, a recommendation, the separating authority has the ability to assign the characterization he or she feels is most appropriate.  In this case the separation authority determined an Other than Honorable characterization was warranted.  While this determination is proper, the NDRB determined that the Commanding Officer had the most relevant knowledge on the Applicant’s actions both before and after his misconduct.  Given the Applicant’s willingness to accept responsibility, his efforts to support the NCIS investigation, his overall record, and the Commanding Officers recommendation, the Board determined that an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was warranted in this case.

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  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  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.