ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230516
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
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:  20050214	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20090826	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  05  Month(s)  19  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  53
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.4 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.3 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  SSDR(x2) ICM(w/1 Star) GWOTSM NDSM NUC CoC 

Periods of UA:  20090403 - 20090425, 23 days 20090518 - 20090518, 01 day
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  3

- 20070806:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) x2
	Awarded:    Suspended:  NONE

- 20070906:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) x2
	Awarded:   Suspended:  

- 20090522:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Awarded:   FOP  Suspended:  NONE

SCM:  1

- 20090330:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Sentence: RIR E-1 CONF FOP
	CA: 

Retention Warning Counseling:  4

- 20051109:	For exercising poor judgment.  

- 20070806:	For violation of Article 92x2.

- 20090615:	For violation of Article 112a.

- 20090616:	For violation of Article 86.

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 seeks an upgrade in order to receive VA health service benefits.
2.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20230118		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.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from August 2006 to October 2008 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution. 

The Applicant's record of service included:

- 20051109:	For exercising poor judgment.  
- 20070806:	For violation of Article 92x2.
- 20090615:	For violation of Article 112a.
- 20090616:	For violation of Article 86.

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) x4

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)

: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to receive VA health service benefits.  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 and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.  Additionally, VA-run Vet Centers also provide lifelong free mental health counseling regardless of discharge status.  To find your local Vet Center, go to www.va.gov/find-locations and search for “Vet Centers” under Facility type.

: The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

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 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, METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE 
2. ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE (ALCOHOLISM) (USMC) 
PTSD likely—evaluation in process 
PTSD and Provisional diagnosis and treatment for BIPOLAR DISORDER (VA) 
 	
2. 	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? 	Yes 	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct? 	Yes, mitigating but less than exculpating 	
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: 	Abbreviations include: 
AHLTA (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application) 

REQUEST ISSUES INCLUDE: 
 
HISTORY INCLUDES: 

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT: 
 
     *FAMILY HISTORY: 
“Mother alcoholic; both parents physically abusive—mother, worse.  Parents divorced on Applicant’s enlistment.  Gets along with sober father; mother still alcoholic. “ 
 
“Pt states both his parents were addicted to drugs and alcohol but his father cleaned up and his mother is still doing it. Pt states he was physically abused by his mom and dad when he was young. Pt states he has a good relationship with his father. Pt states he has a good relationship with his siblings.” 

Date of Birth:  28 Jul 1985 
 
Education Level: 12   
 
MEPS:   
     AFQT:   53 
 
14 Feb 2005—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 19 

21 Apr 2005—RADIOLOGY:  No Fracture; possible Left 2nd Mallet Toe. 
 
03 Nov 2006—Aerial Gunner Qualified in the CH-46E. 
 
March 2007—“Returned from deployment [per 12 Sep 2007 AHLTA entry]” 
 
10 Aug 2007—PDHRA 
 
2. Upon returning from his first deployment to Iraq PFC began displaying trends of alcohol abuse, which led to the revocation of his flight orders and placement in a treatment program. While undergoing treatment [the Applicant]…received an NJP for continuing to abuse alcohol. Despite his enrollment in a treatment program and an NJP, [the Applicant]…was recently found to be using controlled substances. 
  
13 Aug 2007—AHLTA entry: 
“History of present illness…Encounter Background Information: 22 y/o AD USMC male presents for f/u s/p DUI and recent diagnosis of EtOH dependance. On 02 Aug the pt was involved in an MVA and subsequent charge of DUI w/a BAC reported as 0.14-0.15. Pt reports going to a bar in Carlsbad/Oceanside area after drinking 6 beers at the barracks. While at the bar the pt consumed approximately 7 more drinks to include mixed drinks/shots and beer. Pt reports leaving the bar approx 0200-0230 and reports waking up/coming to at the wheel of his car with police officers around him. By report the patient was traveling along pacific hwy and falling asleep/passing out at the wheel and veering off the road through a chain link fence and into field adjacent to I-5 in oceanside and hitting a junx/electrical box. Pt w/little memory of the incident. Pt was incarcerated and released to his SNCOIC's the following morning. Pt report doing well at this time and has abstained from any EtOH since the incident. Pt seen by SARP and mental health and diagnosed w/EtOH dependance and placed on medications for withdrawal and sleep. Drinking history s/f 10-12 beers daily x 5 months.... since return from Iraq. Pt w/one EtOH related incident requiring counseling from his SNCOIC..” 
 
Aug 2007—NJP:  Guilty for DUI/.11 BAC while violating OPNAVINST 3710.7T to abstain from ETOH consumption before flight. 

Sep 2007—NJP:  Guilty for consuming ETOH while on restriction. 

09 Sep 2007—NMC San Diego: “Pt reported to staff that he has hx of deployment to Iraq in Aug06 to Mar07. Per pt he did see combat via air detachement [sic] and mortuary detail. Pt denies hx of PTSD or sx(s) of.” [p146/166] 
 
12 Sep 2007— 
 
“    … The patient is a 22 year-old single male referred to SARP Point Loma (Naval Medical Center San Diego) for residential treatment for the diagnosis of Alcohol Dependence.  Referral is from: self referral and command referral from Camp. Information obtained from records and patient. See previous notes for details. BV Support for Diagnosis: drinking nightly sometimes to blackout since returned from deployment in March, 2007. Got a DUI, showed up to work late and smelling of alcohol” 
 
20 Nov 2007—Ingrown Left Great Toenail 
 
24 Feb 2008—from 26 Mar 2009 AHLTA note [P102/166]:  “Patient requires a screening from a substance abuse counselor following a positive UDS for 
methamphetamine on 24 Feb 2008.” 
 
01 Sep 2008—PDHRA: 
 
26 Mar 2009—[p103/166]  
 
“2. Upon returning from his first deployment to Iraq PFC began displaying trends of alcohol abuse, which led to the revocation of his flight orders and placement in a treatment program. While undergoing treatment PFC received an NJP for continuing to abuse alcohol. Despite his enrollment in a treatment program and an NJP, PFC was recently found to be using controlled substances.” 
 
30 Mar 2009—NJP: Guilty for violating UCMJ Article 112a /methamphetamine abuse. 
 
30 Mar 2009—AHLTA entry: 
“Patient is a 23 year old male. 
Background Information: Patient was Command referred due to a positive UDS for methamphetamine. Patient was previously diagnosed alcohol dependence and was treated and completed at patient Loma Oct 07. Patient reports he has been using meth for a couple of months and meets criteria for methamphetamine abuse.  Patient continues use and has driven under the influence without a license, has stayed up all weekend thurs[day] through Sunday using… 
1. METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE 
2. ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE (ALCOHOLISM): Partial remisson [sic]” 
 
Also:  “Deployment History: None [NOT TRUE—[COULD REPRESENT INATTENTION OR RAPID PACE OF QUESTIONING TECHNIQUE]. History of Abuse: Mother has been violent towards Pt [OMITS  MENTION OF BETTER LIKED F’s ABUSE HX-could be due to being overwhelmed by interview] 
 
09 Apr 2009— Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center, Camp Pendleton CLINICAL PROGRESS NOTE: 
“FAMILY AND CULTURAL: Patient is a 23 year old, single,…male, private in the USMC with 4 years 2 months of Active Duty Service and has been deployed twice to IRAQ. Pt states he was involved with combat action. Patient was command referred to CSACC after testing positive for methamphetamine. Pt has been diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence in partial remission and Methamphetamine Abuse. Pt states both his parents were addicted to drugs and alcohol but his father cleaned up and his mother is still doing it. Pt states he was physically abused by his mom and dad when he was young. Pt states he has a good relationship with his father. Pt states he has a good relationship with his siblings. 
 
14 May 2009—NH Camp, , CP CSACC:  “PTSD Group.” 
 
May 2009—NJP:  Guilty for UA. 
 
18 May [& 04 Jun] 2009—[p79/166] NH Camp AHLTA Entry:   
“SO Note…Chief complaint…: Patient in need of PTSD Counseling. 
Reason for Visit…for: PTSD Group Counseling (120 Minutes). 
History of present illness…The Patient is a 23 year old male. 
Patient participated [sic] actively in group 
A/P…Alcoholism… [Amphetamine Abuse added 04Jun09]” 
 
20 May 2009—URINE AMPHETAMINE: POSITIVE  
     Amphetamines 1000/500 ng/mL 
Methamphetamine 3900/500 ng/mL 
 
16 Jul 2009—Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center, Camp Summary of Care PSYCH Nurse Practitioner AHLTA entry included: 
“The patient completed treatment and was given the following recommendations:  Maintain abstinence from alcohol and drugs 
Attend a minimum of 2 Support meetings per week with court card documentation and weekly follow-up with the patient's SACO. 
Continue with PTSD group meetings at CSACC. 
May be admin sep due to in service drug use.” 
 
21 Jul 2009—“1. After completion of your PTSD reevaluation dated 15 July 2009 you are directed to continue treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder upon your separation from the Marine Corps. The closest VA Medical Center to your home of record is located at 
 
26 Aug 2009—DISCHARGE: UOTH/MISCONDUCT Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
:  04  Year(s)  05  Month(s)  19  Day(s)/5 YEARS 
  
26 Oct 2009—PHARMACY RECORD:   Lithium Carbonate 450mg, Extended release tablet, Oral 
     TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH  ICE 
A DAY FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
       mirtazapine, 30 MG, TABLET, ORAL TAKE ONE-HALF TABLET BY MOUTH AT BEDTIME FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
        trazodone HCl, 50 MG, TABLET, ORAL TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH AT BEDTIME 
 
POST SEPARATION: 
 
07 Jun 2010—Lithium Carbonate 450mg, Extended release 
tablet, Oral Rx.  
 
27 Jan 2010—VA LETTER; 
 
This letter confinns your enrollment in services here at the VA Clinic (community-based outpatient clinic for the VA Medical Center in Chicago) under my care. 
 
You are diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, military-related and provisionally with Bipolar Disorder. You are in treatment for these conditions and recommended for indefinite follow up care at this time. 
 
15 Feb 2010—Lithium Carbonate 450mg, Extended release tablet, Oral 
TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH  ICE 
A DAY FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
 
07 Apr 2010— trazodone HCl, 100 MG, TABLET, ORAL 
TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH AT 
BEDTIME AS NEEDED FOR SLEEP 
 
07 Jun 2010—Lithium Carbonate 450mg, Extended release 
tablet, Oral Rx. TAKE ONE TABLET BY MOUTH TWICE 
A DAY FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
 
COMMENT:   
Against report of a formative background including emotionally and physically abusive, alcohol and drug addicted parents during his youth,  who would appear to have been a bit immature when reportedly having enlisted in the USMC.  The adverse influence of his upbringing, likely, added to his adjustment difficulties and susceptibility to alcohol and substance abuse.  However, he was already under evaluation for PTSD at the time of his discharge (diagnosis later confirmed by VA who, also instituted treatment (Lithium) for suspected BIPOLAR DISORDER within his first year post discharge.  Hence, despite inconsistencies and general evidence to the contrary noted elsewhere, the sequence of events along with the PAH testimony and testimonial evidence suggests consideration of some nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his eventually diagnosed mental health condition(s) to include a discharge upgrade, at least to General Under Honorable Conditions.    	

The Applicant states that the misconduct that led to administrative discharge is mitigated by PTSD he incurred while serving on active duty. The petition for upgrade highlights the Applicant’s deployment history and that the misconduct occurred after a combat deployment in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. It was the PTSD from this deployment that ultimately contributed to the Applicant’s substance abuse issues and poor decision making that led to his misconduct. While serving on active duty the Applicant was subject to three NJPs for violation of Articles 86 and 92x4; and a SCM for violation of Article 112a. The Applicant was confined for 30 days in the punishment from his SCM.  Despite the voluminous amount of misconduct the Applicant claims that his behavior was heavily influenced by PTSD that caused him to abuse alcohol as a means of coping.  Ultimately, the Applicant’s alcohol abuse culminated in poor decisions that included behavior that was in contrast to upholding good order and discipline and in violation of the service drug policy by testing positive for dimethoxyamphetamine. Through diagnosis, and statements from treating physicians the Applicant presents the mental health issues that caused his downfall and states that his situation satisfies the conditions for liberal consideration as directed by DoD policies and guidance. 

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. 

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 administrative separation 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 NDRB’s review of the Applicant’s records included a thorough study of all materials submitted by the Applicant in addition to his official military service and medical records. The NDRB also requested and reviewed records from the VA. In assessment of the complete record the Board did note that the Applicant’s misconduct did occur after his deployment to Iraq and that his record prior did not contain any documented misconduct.  The Applicant’s Commanding Officer stated the Applicant received two NJPs in relation to alcohol abuse.  In August 2007, he was found guilty at NJP of driving under the influence (.11 BAC) while violating OPNAVINST 3710 7T requirements for abstaining from consumption of alcohol before flight. In September 2007, he was found guilty at NJP of consuming alcohol while on restriction. In May 2009, he was found guilty at NJP once more for unauthorized absence. Additionally, on 30 March 2009, he was found guilty of violating Article 112a of the UCMJ, specifically, methamphetamine abuse. Since August 2007, his command had attempted to assist the Applicant through well­ documented visits to the Consolidated Substance Abuse Counseling Center.  Despite all of this 
assistance, the Applicant had shown a lack of improvement, and he is quickly becoming an administrative burden as well as a poor influence on good order and discipline. 

Despite the Applicant’s claim that his abuse is attributed to PTSD he does not offer any statements of accountability or remorse for his actions that put the lives of those he was charged to protect at risk. The NDRB was challenged to identify any acceptable reason for why the Applicant would disobey regulations and consume alcohol when it was strictly prohibited and irresponsible to do so in a combat zone. The Applicant’s situation and conditions were not unique in comparison to all others deployed, but his decision to abuse alcohol and drugs was.  Despite the environment the Applicant had alternatives to assist with his emotions and stress and he failed to take appropriate action and be receptive to intervention. Unless there are unique circumstances a service member who violates the service drug policy is typically separated after their first violation given the serious nature of the misconduct. Thus, the Board did not identify any impropriety in the Navy’s discharge of the Applicant for violation of Article 112a.  Relief on this issue as presented is denied. 

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

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  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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