ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230804
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.6 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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:   20150209 - 20181106  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20181107	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20230325	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  04  Month(s)  19  Day(s)
Education Level:  14	AFQT:  86
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.5 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.5 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  NMCAM (2) MUC GCM (2) NDSM GWOTSM MM LoA (4)

Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  20221004 - 20221110, 38 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  20221004 - 20221109, 37 days

SCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:    NJP:  NONE  Retention Warning Counseling:  NONE

SPCM:  1

- 20221004:	Article 93A (Military recruiter did engage in prohibited sexual act with an applicant) 
	Sentence:  RIR E-1 CONF 45 Days
	CA:  Proper as issued and ordered executed.

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 20150209 UNTIL 20181106”

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.  Paragraph 6210.6, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO 1900.16 CH 2), effective 15 February 2019 until present.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 93A.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for VA benefits.
2.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
3.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
4.	The Applicant contends his mental health condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were mitigating factors in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20231128		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the UCMJ:
Article 93A (Military recruiter did engage in prohibited sexual act with an applicant)

:  The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for VA 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 basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  However, upon administrative review the Board found the Applicant had a period of “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20150209 UNTIL 20181106 that was not annotated on the Applicant’s original DD 214.”  Consequently, presentation to the VA of this period of “Continuous Honorable Service,” is likely to avail the Applicant of most or all VA benefits.  

Although the NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure these administrative changes are incorporated into the record by the respective Service Headquarters.  Moreover, it is the Applicant’s sole responsibility to submit this period of “Continuous Honorable Service” to the VA for a determination of eligibility for VA Benefits.   

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-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

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 NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  In this case, the Board noted the Applicant’s post-service performance and conduct, but found it was insufficient as a sole basis in which to grant relief.  

:  The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The Board thoroughly reviewed the Applicant’s service records and DD Form 293 for the aforementioned considerations and, based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s in-service conduct did not mitigate his engagement in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The awarded characterization of service was warranted.

4:  The Applicant contends his mental health condition and PTSD were mitigating factors in his misconduct.

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 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 – PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder (military)	
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 veteran, was discharged in 2023 based on the commission of a serious offense.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends that undiagnosed mental health conditions negatively affected his judgment and should mitigate his discharge.

Brief timeline:
09 Feb 2015 – Enlistment
07 Nov 2018 – Reenlistment
25 Jan 2020 – Arrived for duty, 
04 Oct 2022 – SPCM (Art 93A)
04 Oct - 09 Nov 2022 – Confinement
14 Dec 2022 – Mental health evaluation (PTSD)
25 Mar 2023 – Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	The Applicant was found guilty at Special Court Martial for having a sexual relationship with a prospective applicant.  Post-confinement, the Applicant was screened positive for mental health concerns, specifically for three non-combat-related incidents involving himself (MVC) and learning of the deaths of fellow Marines.  The Applicant reported the combined trauma, for which he was not able to seek help due to issues with Tricare, left him in a vulnerable state mentally.
2.	As stipulated in the Kurta memo, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI…”  In reviewing the characteristics of this Applicant’s mental health disorder, I find the actions of planning and engaging in sexual contact with a prospective applicant incongruent.  The Applicant, who occupied a position of trust within the recruiting station, used his position to induce an impressionable teenager into a sexual relationship.  This type of activity falls outside matters for consideration under Kurta and Wilke.

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

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 Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnoses – depression and PTSD linked to a motor vehicle collision (MVC) he was involved in and the noncombat deaths of fellow Marines not associated with the MVC, to be of a sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct based on the aforementioned comments by the Board’s Medical Officer.

This case revolves around prohibited activities by the Applicant, a Marine Corps Recruiter, and a prospective female enlisted Army/Marine Corps candidate.  Here, documentation noted the Applicant had a fiancée in the Army who was stationed in Germany, and who he believed to be in an open relationship with.  He met this prospective female Army candidate because she lived with his fiancée’s sister and the Applicant agreed to help her physically train for boot camp.  He purchased two airline tickets for his fiancée’s sister and the female candidate to fly to Maryland where he met them and drove them back to Springfield, MA to stay with him.  He purchased alcohol for himself and made it available to the female candidate who was underage.  During their stay with the Applicant the female candidate became interested in joining the Corps and he initiated the recruiting process with her – conducted an interview, reached out to a staff noncommissioned officer at his recruiting station regarding her desire to join, gave her “tags” as part of the evaluation process, and physically trained her in preparation for boot camp.  It was also during this period that the Applicant began a sexual relationship with the female candidate who slept in his bed throughout the duration of their stay.

While the Board is unsure how this relationship came to light by his chain of command, the Applicant was eventually investigated by NCIS.  Documentation also noted the female candidate involved in this case was represented by counsel and expressed her desire to proceed with the military court-martial.  Facing SPCM, the Applicant exercised his right to qualified counsel and entered into a pre-trial agreement (PTA) where he agreed to plead guilty to violation of 93A at a judge alone trial, not to introduce witnesses on his behalf, and to waive his right to an administrative separation (ADSEP) board.  Given his PTA, two other charges – violation of orders/regulations and false official statements, were dropped without prejudice.  The Applicant was taken to SPCM on 4 October 2022 and pled guilty to prohibited sexual acts with a female candidate as a Marine Corps Recruiter.  While the Applicant acknowledged his wrong doing and was remorseful for his actions, the Board found his behavior premeditated in nature, a violation of the special trust and confidence given to recruiters, and felt he took advantage of his recruiting position to engage sexual relations with a prospective military candidate.

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 Board found the Applicant engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  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.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the Board determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.  Relief 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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of JKQ1, 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.