ex-PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20211212
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   UNSAT PARTICIPATION IN READY RESERVE
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6213 [FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE] 

Applicant’s Request:  Characterization change to:  
Narrative Reason change to:  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to:  RE-1

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  		Active:   20190204 – 20190718  HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20190201	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years  Extension
Date of Discharge:  20210504	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  
	Active:  00 Year(s) 05 Month(s) 15 Day(s)
	Inactive:  NFIR
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  63
Deployment/Operation:  

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

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  NDSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20200731:	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Awarded:  RIR
	Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20200805:	For your NJP dated 20200731. Specifically, your violation of Article 107. 

- 20210110:	For your unauthorized absence from scheduled drill during 20210109 and 20210110 (4 drills).  

- 20210209:	For your unauthorized absence from scheduled drill during 20210206 and 20210209 (8 drills).

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20220802
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD22-00147
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1: Ralph Johnson	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2: Lisa Johnson
	Witness E-3:			Witness C-3: Virginia Johnson

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6213 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 
26 November 2013 until present.

B.  Marine Corps Reserve Administrative Management Manual, MCO P1001R.1, Chapter 3, Reserve Participation and Administrative Procedures, paragraph 3300.

C.  Table 6‑1 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007, Guide for Characterization of Service.

D.  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 the underlying basis of his separation was procedurally defective at the time of discharge.
2.	The Applicant contends the adverse action was unfair at the time of his discharge based upon equity.
3.	The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable under current policy and conditions and that he should receive liberal consideration based on behavioral health concerns.

Discussion

Date:  20220801		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 107 (False official statements) 

Issues 1-3:  The Applicant contends the underlying basis of his separation was procedurally defective at the time of discharge.  The Applicant contends the adverse action was unfair at the time of his discharge based upon equity.  The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable under current policy and conditions and that he should receive liberal consideration based on behavioral health concerns.

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 partially 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, a likely undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder incident to his father’s health issues (battling intestinal cancer with complications) and loss of USN career. 	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, but not entirely exculpating.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unclear	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	HISTORY INCLUDES:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

April 27, 2013    [Applicant] enrolled into the US. Naval Sea Cadet Corp, US Navy League Cadet, 

April 18, 2015—Advanced to Petty Officer Third Class.

January 25, 2016— NSCC Unit Commendation Ribbon

Applicant “has followed this dream from age 13 in 2013 when he researched and found the U.S Naval Sea Cadets Corps (U.S.N.S.C.C.). On July 02, 2016, [Applicant] became a Petty Officer Third Class.”
MEPS:  

01 Feb 2019—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 19 yo

In Feb 2019,Applicant’s father, was diagnosed with Colon Cancer (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer aka Lynch Syndrome)

03 May 2019—Attorney Brief:  “Graduation from recruit training, and went on to advanced Infantry Training at Camp Geiger…his father underwent surgery to remove his colon and underwent emergency surgery in June of 2019 after experiencing complications from his first surgery…father was admitted to the Emergency Room several times during the month of June.” 

17 Jul 2019—“…completed his Advanced Infantry Training and reported to his reserve unit in Smyrna, Tennessee.”

22 Jul 2019—“…father was again admitted…emergency conditions to a medical center…”

 31 Jul 2019—“…Jeep had to be pulled from a ditch.  The very next day…was driving an Isuzu pickup truck…flat tire…Towing arrived…”

18 Jul 2019—DISCHARGE:
Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):
 “Proficiency:  4.2 (NFIR)   Conduct:  4.2 (NFIR)”    

POST SEPARATION:

From ATTORNEY BRIEF:

“…Mechanical difficulties with older vehicles are normal for a young person of [Applicant’s] age and are magnified by the long-distance, round-trip drive from Knoxville to Smyrna. However, [Applicant’s] experience with many mechanical difficulties with multiple vehicles indicates a greater issue, the stress he felt from his father's illness.”

09 Jan 2020—“Additional Vehicle issues for 2020…:

Applicant’s “father spent January through April seeing physicians and specialists.  At the end of April…Isuzu truck needed more mechanical work.  From June 29 to July 13…was seeing doctors and having procedures.  He was rectal bleeding and intra-abdominal abscesses…sepsis caused from bowl leaks and perforations of the intestines.. On July 14, 2020…Isuzu…broke down and…towed by…”

30 Dec 2020—“For your Information, ...am attaching a copy of ……security license to be an unarmed security guard/officer. This license expires on December 31 2020.”

19 Apr 2021—USMC LTR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE 

  “…I certify that the respondent has no combat service or deployment history, has not been diagnosed with PTSD, other mental disorder or TBI, and has not made an allegation of service related sexual assault based upon available records.”
 
Father’s VAMC barely legible record:

COMMENT:  

Against a formative background including a strong family tradition of military service (both grandfathers, and several others, including some USN), the Applicant developed an early firm ambition to follow suit and actively searched out opportunities, eventually applying to the Sea Cadets at age 13.  His, ultimate decision to activate with the USMC at age 19 would appear to have been driven by his conclusion the USMC was “the best.”  Unfortunately, within the month (February 2019 of his enlistment, the Applicant’s father was diagnosed with “Lynch Syndrome” (aka hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC))—apparently, the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer.—Reportedly, this news was withheld from the Applicant at that time so as not to interfere with his initial training).  Subsequent, return to home was accompanied by the need to adjust to his father’s situation while attending to his reserve obligations which became complicated by mishaps as detailed above and elsewhere.  Although, the Application did not include any medical documentation, the Applicant (along with his Attorney and family in attendance) presented a compelling history of subsequent events including the Applicant’s taking responsibility for some mismanagement of practical complications (repeated motor vehicle malfunction, etc.) on his part.  Nonetheless, he did appear to have developed insomnia and depressed mood (without suicidal ideation), complicated by having become significantly less communicative to his detriment, which resulted, for example, in his fiancé breaking off their engagement.  Eventually, he reported having sought psychiatric assistance, resulting in a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder at that time and, eventual, successful psychopharmacologic treatment with Lexapro (Escitalopram Oxalate, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor), which he, reportedly, continues to take.   Accordingly, it would appear reasonable to postulate the Applicant likely suffered from at least an Adjustment Disorder (nonphysical disability) spectrum condition to which a mitigating, though not entirely exculpating, mental health nexus to any of the currently listed misconduct may be applied.  Also, the Applicant’s impressive post discharge motivation for self-improvement and accomplishments are noted and consideration as a matter of clemency, fairness and equity is recommended.	

Based on a review of the Applicant’s service record and supplemental documentation submitted with his DD Form 293, the NDRB found a concerning impropriety in the Applicant’s administrative separation (ADSEP) proceedings and his subsequent discharge from the United States Marine Corps Reserve.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case, but documents furnished by the Applicant raised serious questions as to the authenticity of documents in the Applicant’s service record, specifically the Acknowledgement of Rights to Be Exercised or Waived During Separation Proceedings (Board Case) which the Applicant signed on 8 March 2021 (hereafter referred to as the Acknowledgement).  

Paragraph 3a of the Acknowledgement in the service record indicates that the Applicant had consulted with counsel, but in the space reserved for counsel’s name was the comment, “SNM could not provide,” in handwriting that appeared to be from someone other than the Applicant.  Furthermore, paragraph 3b indicates that the Applicant did not request a hearing before an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) and paragraph 3c indicates that he did not include a written statement in rebuttal to the proposed separation.  The Acknowledgement submitted by the Applicant with his DD Form 293 is identical except for the first page.  This page contained different elections in paragraph 3.  In paragraph 3a, have consulted with counsel was still circled, though the name of counsel line was blank, and no election was made regarding a written rebuttal in paragraph 3c.  Of more significant consequence, the Applicant selected that he did request a hearing before an ASB.  Even more concerning to the NDRB, the initials of the Applicant on the first page of the Acknowledgement in the service record did not match the Applicant’s initials on the following two pages, bearing a more erect posture compared to the noticeable rightward cant of the Applicant’s initials, indicating they were initialed by someone other than the Applicant.

At the time the Applicant was called in to be notified of his Administrative Separation, his family contacted an attorney, the same attorney who is representing him in his petition to the NDRB.  Counsel was on the phone with the Applicant as he was being instructed to initial and sign the Acknowledgement and clearly instructed the Applicant to request a hearing before an ASB.  Counsel further stated that he had later offered to the command that the Applicant would waive his right to an ASB if the command granted a request for discharge with a General discharge.  This request and other inquiries to the command on scheduling of an ASB went unanswered.  Counsel had inferred normal delays in scheduling the ASB, only to discover the Applicant had been discharged on 4 May 2021 without the requested ASB, leaving him with no further options but to petition the NDRB for redress.

Here, the record and regulations show that the Applicant’s chain of command did not follow the directives set forth in the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN).  The Applicant was entitled to have his case heard by an ASB and that right was not upheld by the command.  As such, the NDRB determined that there was a violation committed during the separation process, and held that a change to Honorable was warranted.  The NDRB considered the Applicant’s alleged misconduct, specifically the number of failures to drill for which the Applicant should have either been permitted to correct or present at his ASB for retention and/or exculpatory evidence to warrant an Honorable characterization of service.  The NDRB found the Command’s record keeping so egregious that the Board found insufficient evidence to deny that the although the Applicant’s service was not flawless, the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.

Finally, and/or repeatedly, the Board also finds that 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.   Lastly, and noting the Command’s egregious record keeping and the Applicant’s outstanding post-service performance and conduct, the Board also held that the Applicant’s characterization of service/narrative should change to Honorable/Secretarial Authority based on the principles of clemency.

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 jff1, and the reentry code shall  RE-1A.  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.