ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230416
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:  NONE REQUESTED
Reentry Code change to:  NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  		Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20081229	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20121002	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  09  Month(s)  04  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  67
Deployment/Operation:  

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

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  (2) GCM GWOTSM NDSM LoA 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:    NJP:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20100930:	For violation of Article 86.

- 20120522:	For violation of the Marine Corps tattoo policy. 

- 20120522:	For spice usage identified through urinalysis confirmed by Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Dover AFB report dated 9 February 2012.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20150505
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  MD14-01585
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:

    “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”

The NDRB will recommend to Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, 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 it was improper for his administrative separation (ADSEP) board (ASB) to use his positive urinalysis to determine his characterization of service since he self-referred for substance dependence and should have been exempt from disciplinary actions.
2.	The Applicant contends the urine sample he provided was so controverted, it should not have been accepted into evidence.
3.	The Applicant contends the characterization of his service is overly harsh given the totality of his service.

Discussion

Date:  20230829		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.

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:

:  The Applicant contends it was improper for his ASB to use his positive urinalysis to determine his characterization of service since he self-referred for substance dependence and should have been exempt from disciplinary actions.

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.

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 issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his discharge was improper.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Given documentation available for the NDRB’s review, it appeared the Applicant was in the midst of being weaned off pain medication post-surgery when medical staff noticed he was in active withdrawal and sent him to inpatient rehabilitation.  At the same time, his command requested a voluntary urinalysis, which the Applicant consented to via documentation dated 30 November 2011.  Other documentation noted his command specifically requested his sample be tested for spice, which at the time was not tested for at Navy Drug Screening Laboratories.  Because of this limitation, his sample was sent to the Forensic Toxicology Lab of the Armed Force Medical Examiner System (AFMES) aboard Air Force Base (AFB), where it tested positive for spice.  Because his command specifically asked for his sample to be tested for spice, the NDRB concluded they likely had probable cause to believe the Applicant was using synthetic cannabinoids.  OPNAVINST 5340.4E states that any Service Member who self-refers for a possible drug related disorder after notification of the requirement to submit or the actual submission of a urine sample for analysis under any testing premise is ineligible for exemption from disciplinary action under the self-referral program.  Given the Applicant signed a urinalysis consent form, the NDRB found no impropriety in using his positive urinalysis to determine his characterization of service.

Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for ADSEP regardless of grade or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The Applicant was notified of ADSEP proceedings on 29 May 2012 and exercised his right to qualified counsel (military and civilian), a statement, and an ASB.  His ASB convened on 8 August 2012 and found by a vote of 3 to 0 that the preponderance of evidence supported the basis for his separation and recommended separation with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization (UOTHC) of service without delay.  His chain of command agreed with the ASB’s recommendation and he was separated on 2 October 2012 for misconduct – drug abuse with an UOTHC discharge.  The NDRB was unable to locate a letter of deficiency submitted by either of the Applicant’s lawyers.

:  The Applicant contends the urine sample he provided was so controverted, it should not have been accepted into evidence.

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 issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his urine sample was so controverted it should not have been accepted into evidence.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

The unit’s drug testing program testing register was available for review in his OMPF.  The Applicant’s urine sample was collected on 30 November 2011.  The register noted the Applicant’s specimen was collected voluntarily (VO) and that he had verified the information on the register by signing next to his name.  Additionally, the unit’s observer had printed and signed his name on the register.  The NDRB reviewed the chain of custody and found no impropriety.  His sample was put in storage from 30 November to 13 December 2011.  It was sent via mail on 13 December and received by the Forensic Toxicology Lab of the AFMES on 3 January 2012.  Documentation noted the condition of the specimen was good and that as a result of the BRAC relocation of the AFMES, Forensic Toxicology Lab to AFB, synthetic cannabinoid testing had been placed on temporary hold until the early part of 2012.  Another document from the AFMES, Forensic Toxicology Lab dated 9 February 2012 noted the Applicant’s sample had tested positive for pentanoic acid and butanoic acid via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.  His positive urinalysis was reported to his unit who subsequently initiated ADSEP proceedings.  Given the documentation available for review in this case, the NDRB concluded there was no impropriety with the Applicant’s urinalysis collection or testing process.

:  The Applicant contends the characterization of his service is overly harsh given the totality of his service.

The NDRB 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?	Yes – Anxiety Disorder. Severe Substance Use Disorder, Chronic Pain Disorder	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes (only Chronic Pain, though)	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Board decision (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant, a Marine veteran, was discharge in 2012 for violating service drug policy.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends government impropriety in the handling of his case (specifically the finding of Spice in a urinalysis).  No additional medical documentation was provided.

Brief timeline:
29 Dec 2008 – Enlistment
22 Aug 2011 – ED visit/transfer for paraspinal abscess, undergoes emergent neurosurgical procedure
12 Sep 2011 – Discharge from New Hanover RMC with PICC line/IV antibiotics, oral pain medications
06 Oct 2011 – PICC line removed, continued on oral pain medications (last prescription).  Complaint of numbness in left groin/leg
10 Nov 2011 – Seen at Clinic
29 Nov 2011 – Seen at Carolina East MC for confusion/anxiety, f/u exam with NHCL – diagnosed with opioid withdrawal, anxiety disorder, and chronic pain.  Applicant desired inpatient detoxification.
30 Nov 2011 – Admitted to NHCL psychiatric ward (no bed available at rehabilitation center, Applicant stated he had two prior inpatient detoxification stays for opioid/opiates.)
2 – 30 Dec 2011 – Admitted to Wilmington Treatment Center (opioid dependence)
30 Jan 2012 – Started on Suboxone therapy by NHCL Mental Health
09 Feb 2012 + UDS (Spice) – DOI – 11/27/2011
08 Aug 2012 – ASB (3-0 separation, OTH, no suspension/IRR)
02 Oct 2012 – Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	This is a fairly complex case involving the treatment of a spinal infection complicated by a severe substance use disorder.  Evidence from the medical record also indicates that the Applicant, prior to service, had been admitted for substance use detoxification at least twice and was fairly knowledgeable about the process and medications.
2.	Prior to the issues with substance use, the Applicant endured a complicated post-operative course of strong opioid pain medications (short and long-acting) and IV antibiotics.  Further, due to difficulties with placement, most of the Applicant’s outpatient care was accomplished in the barracks.
3.	In the course of weaning the patient of the pain medications from his original surgery, the medical staff (civilian and military) noted he was in active withdrawal and sent him for inpatient rehabilitation.  Immediately prior to inpatient admission, the command requested a urine sample for drug screening to which Applicant voluntarily consented.  This sample, sent to Forensic Toxicology Lab of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, tested positive for metabolites of synthetic cannabinoids (Spice).  Per the Applicant’s statement, this urinalysis was a prerequisite for placement in the inpatient rehabilitation program.  Further, it’s unclear why the Applicant’s command specifically requested Spice testing in addition to the normal UA assay.
4.	The Applicant, on a PEB for his back issue, was ultimately separated for his Spice use after an administrative separation board.  The board voted 3-0 to recommend separation with an OTH characterization.
5.	I did not find any other amplifying information on mental health issues outside of an anxiety disorder that was likely related to acute opioid withdrawal.
6.	While mental health is not an issue here, several steps on the command’s processing need evaluation for propriety and the overall characterization of discharge needs scrutiny for equity.	

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  However, the NDRB does not consider the Applicant’s aforementioned anxiety disorder, which was likely related to acute opioid withdrawal to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s spice use.

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 thoroughly reviewed the totality of the Applicant’s military service using his service records and DD Form 293.  The Applicant served 3 years, 9 months, and 4 days of a 5 year, no extension enlistment, maintained Proficiency and Conduct marks of 4.2 and 4.2 across an unknown number of reports, and was awarded a Good Conduct Medal.  Outside of his violation of Article 112a, the Board found insufficient evidence of any other significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty to outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  While the Board also considered his misconduct a significant negative aspect within his military career, it did not rise to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his entire time in-service.  Consequently, the Board discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service.  By unanimous decision, the Board voted to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge.  Partial relief granted.

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 GKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

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.