ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230523
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 20080602 - 20120110  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20120111	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20131114	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  01  Year(s)  16  Month(s)  03  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  40
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.1 (NFIR) Behavior/Conduct: 3.8 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  NMUC GCM NDSM ACM (w/2 Stars) GWOTSM SSDR NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan MM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  3

- 20120612:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) Operate vehicle while impaired. 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR   Suspended:  RIR FOP RESTR  

- 20130513:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD  Suspended:  FOP    

- 20130510:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 112 (Drunk on duty) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD  Suspended:  FOP RESTR EPD    

CIVIL ARREST:  1

- 20120526:	Charges:  Driving under the influence.

Retention Warning Counseling:  6

- 20120612:	For violation of article 92 resulting in NJP. 

- 20130507:	For DUI. 

- 20130520	For violation of articles 86, 92 and 112 resulting in NJP. 

- 20130516:	For Civilian Conviction for DUI. 

- 20130606:	For Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct. 

- 20130903:	For violation of article 86 resulting in NJP. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20080602 UNTIL 20120110”
	  “MISCONDUCT”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or 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.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 26 November 2013. 

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 that the circumstances that led to his administrative separation and assigned discharge characterization are mitigated by mental health challenges he experiences and stem from his active duty tenure. 
Discussion

Date:  20231129		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 February to August 2011 in support of Operation ENDURING 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:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)
Article 112 (Drunk on duty)

 Civil Arrest

:  The Applicant contends that the circumstances that led to his administrative separation and assigned discharge characterization are mitigated by mental health challenges he experiences and stem from his active duty tenure. 

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.  

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience did 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 – PTSD (EPTE), Complicated Bereavement, Depressive Disorder NOS, Alcohol Use Disorder (military)
PTSD (VA)
PTSD, Persistent Depressive Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder (civilian)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (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 combat veteran, was discharged in 2013 based on a pattern of misconduct.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends service-connected PTSD led to his alcohol use, which fueled his misconduct.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 80% disability, 70% for PTSD.  He also included an outside mental health opinion supporting his mental health diagnosis.  

Brief timeline:
21 Nov 2004 – Pre-service DUI, self-refers for treatment in 2010 to have license restored

02 Jun 2008 – Enlistment
27 Feb 2009 – Arrived for duty,)
04 Feb 2010 – Completed IMPACT (SARP Level 0.5)
13-23 Apr 2010 – Outpatient mental health visits x 6 (Depressive Disorder NOS)
14 Feb – 15 Aug 2011 – OEF deployment (negative PDHA/PDHRA)
03 Feb 2012 – Arrived for duty, 2nd Radio BN (II MHG)
~ Feb – Mar 2012 – ARI (drunk, stopped before operating MV)
07 Mar 2012 – SARP screening (no diagnosis), denied PTSD/TBI
17 May 2012 – Completed IMPACT (SARP Level 0.5)
12 Jun 2012 – NJP (Art 92)
20 Jun 2012 – SARP screening (ARI/civilian arrest on 5/26/12, DUI, refused BAC, diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse)
10 Oct 2012 – Primary care visit (insomnia, heavy alcohol use, denied PTSD/TBI)
15 Oct 2012 – Outpatient mental health appointment (PTSD (EPTE)), psychiatrically found FFD
19 Oct 2012 – SARP screening (Alcohol Dependence)
Jan 2013 – Outpatient SARP (Level 1)
19 Apr 2013 – Civilian conviction (DUI)
29 Aug 2013 – Positive BAC while in SARP Continuing Treatment
03 May 2013 – NJP (Art 86)
20 May 2013 – NJP (Art 86, 92, 112)
06 Oct 2013 – Residential SARP (Level 3) completion
14 Nov 2013 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	The Applicant, a 31-year old Kenya native, entered the Marine Corps in 2008.  After initial training, the Applicant deployed to Afghanistan in 2011.  All contemporary information from that deployment was unremarkable for combat exposure.  The Applicant rose to the rank of CPL prior to the onset of his significant misconduct.
2.	Early alcohol use – the Applicant entered the service with a history of a DUI in 2004 that was unreported on his MEPS physical.  Due to poor socioeconomic conditions at the time of the DUI, the Applicant was unable to afford repaying court-associated fines and continued to have a suspended driver’s license during the early portion of his enlistment.  In order to remedy this issue, the Applicant self-referred to SARP in 2010 in order to obtain treatment verification.  Concurrent to the SARP treatment, the Applicant was also seen by mental health for the treatment of an unspecified depressive disorder, centered mostly on traumatic events from his childhood in Nairobi, Kenya.  
3.	ARIs & SARP treatment – Over the space of the next three years, the Applicant incurred four additional ARIs, resulting in additional SARP screening, treatment, and command legal action.  In total, the Applicant had two DUI offenses, a drunk on restriction charge, and a positive BAC while in a SARP aftercare program.  He underwent IMPACT training (twice), Outpatient Rehabilitation, and Residential Rehabilitation.  All information from SARP notes indicate a tendency by the Applicant to minimize reporting the amount and frequency of his alcohol consumption.
4.	PTSD – the Applicant was diagnosed with PTSD (EPTE) vs. Complicated Bereavement while on active duty (Oct 2012), again in reference to events in Kenya.  Despite the diagnoses and ongoing treatment, the Applicant was maintained as fit-for-full duty psychiatrically.  Notably, on multiple occasions, in multiple venues, with multiple military mental health providers, the Applicant actively endorsed no combat-related PTSD/TBI exposures or linger issues.  Later testimony (VA and civilian) appears to be different from this initial view.
5.	Conclusion – relying heavily on medical information contemporary to the Applicant’s service, I do not find substantial evidence of combat-related PTSD or TBI.  Further, the Applicant’s alcohol use disorder (unreported at MEPS) appears to precede entry into the USMC and continued generally unabated despite ongoing treatment.  Lastly, the Applicant was fit-for-full duty psychologically, indicating a level of cognition capable of understanding military regulations and the ramifications of his actions.

Based this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.	

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 accordance with the above, the Board found the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service was not appropriate. 

The Applicant states that his discharge is inequitable as he suffers from mental health challenges that mitigate the misconduct that contributed to his administrative separation. Separated for the primary reason for a Pattern of Misconduct, the Applicant’s processing also included reason for Alcohol Treatment Failure. During the period of service under review it was noted that he received diagnosis for mental health conditions that included depression, anxiety and alcohol use disorder. Within the record multiple acts of misconduct are documented that associate with driving under the influence, drunkenness on duty, disobedience and being absent without authorization. Additionally, it was noted the Applicant was the recipient of substance abuse treatment that included an outpatient and inpatient treatment programs. Misconduct and treatment occurred over the course of a one year period to which the Applicant was afforded reasonable time to respond to a plethora of resources his command committed to him.  

While the Applicant’s record supports administrative processing for reason of Pattern of Misconduct, the Board also noted a record that substantiated an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  While an ARF discharge is eligible for a Honorable discharge, a review of the Applicant’s service and assessment of misconduct determines the outcome. Given the amount of misconduct and the significant nature of the commissions, the Board did not find grounds to upgrade the discharge for reasons that would more associate with just his failure to uphold post-treatment standards. Given the effort and compassion exercised by the Applicant’s command, the NDRB was challenged to grant additional relief as the factors for consideration raised by the Applicant appear to have been recognized by the Separation Authority. Despite the mental health disposition of the Applicant, the record substantiates a period of service consisting of significant misconduct that challenged good order and discipline, but also posed occupation and personal safety risks to others. Despite the diagnosis, the Board was challenged to overcome the magnitude of all the misconduct and discount the rehabilitative investments the command made in the Applicant. In this case, the NDRB determined the quality of the Applicant’s service met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel separated for a Pattern of Misconduct and an Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, and it is appropriate to characterize the Applicant’s service as General.    

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 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of GKA1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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, see Find your nearest VA medical center.