ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230320
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Narrative Reason change to: NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20120827	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20141210	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  14  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  35
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.1 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20141031:	Article 107 (False official statements; false swearing)  
	Article 109 (Property other than military property of U.S.: waste, spoilage, or destruction)
	Article 128 (Assault)
	Article 134 (Straggling)
	Awarded:    Suspended:  NONE

- 20131029:	Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
	Awarded: RIR RESTR EPD FOP   Suspended:  

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20131031:	For violation of Article 121.

- 20140507:	For violation of Article 92.

- 20140609:	For assignment to the Remedial Conditioning Program (RCP) due to failure of upholding Marine Corps height, weight or body fat standards.

- 20141031:	For violation of Articles 107, 109, 128 and 134.

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.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until 14 February 2019. 

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 requests a discharge upgrade from other than honorable based on a claim of sexual harassment.
Discussion

Date:  20240509		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:

-	Article 121 Larceny
-	Article 92 Failure to follow order (haircut, tattoos)
-	Assignment to the remedial conditioning program

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 107 (False official statements; false swearing)
Article 109 (Property other than military property of U.S.: waste, spoilage, or destruction)
Article 128 (Assault)
Article 134 (Straggling)
Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)

:  The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade from other than honorable based on a claim of sexual harassment.

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 did 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?	Yes, likely, 
Undiagnosed, Alcohol Use Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (including self injury-“cutting” behavior and features of undiagnosed Oppositional Defiant Disorder) in the presence of immaturity and significantly naïve expectations at enlistment; Insufficiently documented alleged MST.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, except insufficient evidence for MST despite compelling PAH presentation.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes, though not technically exculpating.  While, technically, Conditions Not a Disability, much in the same way as Adjustment Disorders--especially, considering the likely provocative circumstances	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Likely, Yes, though complete separation physical examination not located, the applicant’s benign, productive post discharge course supports the above diagnostic conclusions.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	ABBREVIATIONS MAY INCLUDE:
AHLTA:  Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application
p(p): page(s)/out of total number of pages in casefile

CASE HISTORY INCLUDES:

   PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Date of Birth:  24 Jun 1992

Education Level:   12

MEPS:  
     AFQT:   35
    NO ETOH/THC/DRUG use.

27 Aug 2012—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 20

>24 Jun 2013—First Alcoholic Blackout.

10 Sep 2014—AHLTA note indicated the Applicant had been “Hospitalized: Inpatient Psych 4A” absent details except to notify, to indicate “Issue: Patient was a "no show" for the mandatory group follow up; has no other mental health appointments; could not reach service member at her listed phone number, need to ensure her safety as well…”

29 Sep 2014—(see pdf casefile p 52/113) Medical Officer correspondence “…PTSD…AND…TBI…SCREENING IN THE INVOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF ______” included:
“SNM has never deployed…SNM has not been diagnosed with or reported symptoms consistent with PTSD or TBI. SNM states was treated for other mental health disorders not associated with PTSD/TBI…continues to receive therapy.”
~7-10 Dec 2014—Naval Hospital Admission:  Records missing.

10 Dec 2014—DISCHARGE: UOTH/Reason: PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
HKAI/RE-04
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  14  Day(s)
Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.1 (NFIR)  
   POST SEPARATION:
22 Feb 2023—DD FORM 293:
Item 21: Checked “Sexual Assault/Harassment”
Item 22: WHY IS A CHANGE REQUESTED?
“While I was serving my country I felt I was sexually harassed by my fellow male marines. I also had felt I was being discriminated for my sexuality, because I preferred women not men. I was told I ‘didn't have sex with the right man yet.’ multiple times, that I should 'take It like a man since I want to be a man: The men would laugh it off and a lot of them thought it was funny, when deep down it tore me apart when they were suppose to br [sic] my brothers in arms or mentors…caused me to act out and not be the marine I wanted to be.”

COMMENT:  

Against a relatively benign formative background beginning by being the 2nd  oldest of 7 siblings (one older brother) in a close-knit, “military brat” family, with a predominantly A-B academic record, and inspired by the Navy/Army career of her father, the Applicant made an early decision “to give my whole life to the Marine Corps.” This was reflected in her dedicated and successful participation in her high school Junior ROTC program (for 3 years, including Color Guard) and taking an extra year to prepare, physically, for USMC boot camp.  However, she found herself ill-prepared to acclimate to the male dominant culture she reportedly encountered which appears to have taken the Applicant’s stated sexual preference for females as a challenge and, hence, subject to gross banter and harassment to which informal attempts to seek “advice” were, allegedly, greeted with, just “shut up and deal with it.”  She reported having “felt alone…like I was never going to be good enough, became depressed, gained weight and increasingly felt that she “just had to lash out leading to relatively minor infractions, e.g., use of laxatives to lose weight.    While she, reportedly, had not abused substances prior to enlistment (first alcohol at age 18 had consisted of “awful”-tasting glass of Vodka), she turned to alcohol.  Reportedly, she had her first alcoholic blackout at age 21, and, allegedly, during a later blackout, awakened “in pain and bloody-not my period.  However, unfortunately, MST was not reported.  Additionally, she started to engage in self “cutting behavior [of distal forearms with a razor blade]” to relieve her emotional pain.  While Service Treatment Records are missing, the Applicant indicates she was briefly admitted to the Psychiatry Service, Naval Hospital Camp in early “December [2014] just before my discharge [unable to locate hospital admission (apparently admission occurred in September) clinical record].”  There is lack of clarity regarding why a formal SARP referral was reportedly not offered (although she, also, did not recall having signed what the record shows as her signed refusal of an offer of post discharge VA rehabilitation).  A 29 Sep 2014 Medical Officer PTSD/TBI evaluation letter indicated, “SNM has not been diagnosed with or reported symptoms consistent with PTSD or TBI.  SNM denies any signs or symptoms consistent with PTSD/TBI. SNM states [she] was treated for other mental health disorders not associated with PTSD/TBI.”  What is clearer is her report of post service adjustment.  Apparently, over time, the overwhelming support of her family, her own growing acceptance of circumstances, and the support of her local “Christian” church community resources, she has rallied and obtained productive employment at a local jail while pursuing an advanced college degree in Cybersecurity.  She reports limited alcohol consumption, a stable family life and a 6 year old daughter.  While not an exact conformation to Kurta guidance, the described circumstances and PAH testimony had a compelling quality, at times interrupting her with tears.  Accordingly, the evidence of record and PAH testimony would appear to support consideration of some relief based upon the adjustment difficulties and post discharge achievement noted above.  Missing, possibly critical psychiatric hospitalization records noted.  

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.  In making its determination, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s service record and medical record.  The Board also listened to extensive testimony from the Applicant regarding her misconduct, excessive drinking, and claim of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The Applicant’s record indicated she had difficulty complying with Marine Corps policy for personal appearance and height weight standards.  She was formally counseled for obtaining and displaying sleave tattoos and an eccentric, half shaved haircut.  The applicant repeatedly testified that she was never afforded the proper help to address her weight problem.  The Applicant was outside of regulation for weight and body fat for her height.  She was placed on a remedial conditioning program and failed at that program for both weight and body fat reduction.  Growing up in a military family, it was clear to the Board based on her responses that the Applicant understood the effort required to succeed at this aspect of military life.  The Applicant testified to the example set by her father in this respect with his daily running program.

The Applicant discussed her in-service alcohol problems with candor.  However, while recognizing that she had an alcohol problem the Applicant refused to seek assistance from any of the numerous programs available to servicemembers for treating substance abuse.  This included a formal refusal for treatment, which the Applicant signed, when counseled for substance abuse by her command.  The Board determined via testimony that both of her incidents (shoplifting, fire extinguisher prank) resulting in non-judicial punishment also involved excessive drinking even though alcohol abuse does not appear in the record surrounding these events.

The Applicant discussed a moment in-service where she thought she might have been sexually assaulted.  She testified that she woke up once with blood and soreness, but also that she neither availed herself of restricted or unrestricted reporting programs nor sought help from medical provider.  There is nothing in the service or medical record indicting a sexual assault occurred.  The Applicant testified that her in-service assertion of sexual harassment was fellow male Marines making fun of her sexual orientation.  The Marine Corps does not condone verbal denigration of another Marine.  The Applicant discussed a visit to the psychiatric ward at the Camp LeJeune Naval Hospital where she was an inpatient for a week for cutting behavior.  This weeklong inpatient visit is not corroborated by the Applicant’s in-service medical record, which is unusual given it occurred at a naval hospital.

The Board determined the Applicant’s two years and three months of service were dotted with incidents exhibiting difficulty adjusting to military life.  The Board’s medical member recognized that the Applicant bore some responsibility for her repeated failures at adjusting to military life, but that his evaluation indicated a small element of liberal consideration could apply.  The Board viewed the Applicant’s final NJP as a sophomoric prank that could be overlooked, but the Board could not overlook the Applicant’s larceny conviction or failure to comply with simple military policy on personal appearance.  Given these facts and the Applicant’s two years of service, the Board voted for a discharge characterization upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) and no other changes.

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 - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKA1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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.