ex- MAJ, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230801
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:   SECNAVINST 1920.6D 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE		Active:	 20041012 – 20080710 HON 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20080711	Age:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20220701	Highest Rank:  MAJ
Length of Service:  13 Year(s)     Month(s)   20 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  80
Deployment/Operation: ; 

Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	JSCM NMCCM (3) JMUA NUC NDSM GWOTEM ()(2) GWOTSM AFSM SSDR (2) 

Periods of UA:  20210524 - 210528, 5 days
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  20211213 - 211219, 7 days

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

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20210121:	For violation of articles 86, 112 and 133. 

- 20211108:	For violation of articles 86 and 133. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should include:  “EXPERT RIFLE QUALIFICATION BADGE (5), EXPERT PISTOL QUALIFICATION BADGE (5)”
	    “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 041012 UNTIL 080710” 
    “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)”
	    “SECNAVINST 1920.6D”
	
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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6D (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 24 July 2019 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 11 May 2018.

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 his unauthorized absences (UA) were tied to extensive diagnosed mental health conditions and subsequent hospitalization.
2.	The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable in that the entirety of his service merited an Honorable discharge and the unwarranted discharge classification and narrative unjustly tarnished his legacy and subjected him to personal shame and professional embarrassment.
Discussion

Date:  20231207		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 deployments from September 2012 to May 2013 in support of Operation NEW DAWN and from September 2016 to April 2017 in support of Operation.  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:

:  The Applicant contends that his unauthorized absences (UA) were tied to extensive diagnosed mental health conditions and subsequent hospitalization.  The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable in that the entirety of his service merited an Honorable discharge and the unwarranted discharge classification and narrative unjustly tarnished his legacy and subjected him to personal shame and professional embarrassment.

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

The Applicant, a Marine officer, resigned in lieu of further administrative processing in 2022 and was given a GUHC characterization of service.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends service-connected PTSD and debilitating anxiety/panic attacks contributed to his alcohol use and should mitigate the severity of his discharge.  Since discharge, the Applicant has been awarded 100% disability by the VA (70% for PTSD).

Brief timeline:
12 Oct 2004 – Commissioning process (commissioned in 2008)
17 Sep 2012 – 13 May 2013 – MEU/WESTPAC deployment
28 Sep 2016 – 02 Apr 2017 – JTFHOA deployment ()
01 May 2018 – SARP evaluation, Outpatient Alcohol Rehabilitation (SARP Level 1- per medical record)
18 May 2018 – Mental health evaluation (Other Problems Related to Employment/Relationship)
~ Nov 2019 – ARI (Arrived late for work)
~ Nov 2019 – Intensive Outpatient rehabilitation (SARP Level 2)
20 – 24 Jul 2020 – period of misconduct
23 Jul 2020 – SARP screening (Alcohol Use Disorder, mild)
30 Jul – 27 Aug 2020 – Inpatient alcohol rehabilitation (SARP Level 3)
Aug 2020 – discharge – frequent outpatient mental health visits (Alcohol Use Disorder, Anxiety Disorder)
25 Jan 2021 – Pg. 11 (Art 86, 112, 133)
01 Mar 2021 – Completion of SARP Continuing Care Program
24 – 28 May 2021 – UA period (missed course while TAD)
24 May 2021 – Civilian EMS evaluation (chest pain, refused hospital transport AMA)
06 Jun 2021 – Civilian ED evaluation (LD chit x 3 days)
08 June 2021 – UA from work
09 June 2021 – Fitness for Duty evaluation
09 Jun – 09 Dec 2021 – LIMDU initiated
13 – 19 Dec 2021 – UA
24 Jan 2022 – Notification of BOI (Art 86 x 3, 89, 112, 133 x 2) 
01 – 04 May 2022 – Inpatient psychiatric admission
6 May 2022 – Civilian mental health evaluation letter (Generalized Anxiety Disorder with Panic Disorder)
13 May 2022 – ARI/ED evaluation (public intoxication, suicidal ideation)
19 May 2022 – Submitted request for resignation
23 May – 20 Jun 2022 – Inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program (SARP Level 3)
01 Jul 2022 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	The Applicant, a Marine Major, resigned in lieu of further administrative proceedings in July of 2022.  According to the record, the Applicant was facing multiple charges spanning a nearly two-year period, including unauthorized absence, disrespectful behavior to a senior, being drunk on duty, and conduct unbecoming.
2.	A review of the Applicant’s medical and SARP records indicates several diagnoses.  First, the Applicant related a longstanding history of anxiety, starting in adolescence, worsening in college, and finally growing out of control (panic attacks) after a 2016-2017 deployment to JTFHOA in Djibouti, Africa.  During the time of the misconduct, the Applicant sought care for his anxiety and was treated with a variety of medications and behavioral therapies.
3.	Concurrently, the Applicant use alcohol to self-treat his anxiety disorder, with a gradual increase in consumption that culminated in daily drinking during the time of the initial misconduct.  In total, the Applicant attended four SARP rehabilitation programs, including two residential programs.  
4.	No reliable record of PTSD or TBI exposures were found in the active duty records, though these diagnoses were mentioned in the separation proceedings and have been diagnosed in the VA.  It is unclear how these diagnoses were made and to what degree they had impact on this case.
5.	In reviewing the higher-level recommendations and final discharge authority, I find the chain of command had adequate information on which to evaluate the Applicant’s mental health in conjunction with his misconduct.  As there was no additional information presented in this Application, I do not find merit in seeking to override the informed opinions of senior Marine generals and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
6.	In reviewing the case under Kurta and Wilke considerations, I note the following:
a.	"Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI... and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances." (Kurta).  Mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
•	Length of time in and quality of service
•	Prior deployments
•	The degree to which alcohol dependence dictated the Applicant’s misconduct
VS
•	Holding a position of trust and confidence at the time of misconduct
•	Timeframe and egregious nature of the misconduct
•	Lack of a medical nexus supporting an inability of the Applicant to make clear, goal-direct decisions and understand the ramifications of his actions
•	Failure to maintain sobriety after four alcohol treatment programs at Level 1 or higher
b.	Wilke Criteria for determining equity, injustice, or clemency grounds – I find several factors contributing to this case including:
a.	Applicant’s candor and acceptance of responsibility
b.	Character references & letters of recommendation	

When reviewing discharges, the NDRB considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In this case, the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  The Applicant had a number of alcohol related incidents while on active duty that led to multiple violations of Articles 86, 112, and 133 in July 2020, for which the Applicant later received two Retention Warning Counselings, and for which the Commanding General, Force Headquarters Group, Marine Forces Reserve (CG, FHG), recommended that he be required to show cause for retention at a Board of Inquiry (BOI).  The Applicant received treatment through the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP), after having earlier received SARP treatments in May 2018 and November 2019.  Believing the Applicant was benefiting from further treatment, the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (DC, M&RA), on behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), terminated the processing for administrative separation against the Applicant in April 2021.  Unfortunately, the Applicant continued to abuse alcohol and committed further alcohol related incidents of misconduct with additional violations of Articles 86, 112, and 133 in May, June, and possibly December 2021, as well as May 2022, leading to an intensive inpatient treatment program.  The Applicant also committed violations of Article 89, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, on or about 7 November 2021 and on or about 20 December 2021.

On 19 May 2022, the Applicant submitted a request for resignation in lieu of further administrative processing (RILFAP) for the good of the service, in which he admitted to and took full responsibility for violating Articles 86, 89, 112, and 133; admitted his performance of duty was substandard; and acknowledged that he might receive an Other Than Honorable characterization of service.  In the first endorsement on the Applicant’s RILFAP, the CG, FHG, acknowledged the Applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD and TBI and that his mental health condition likely led to/contributed his misconduct.  The CG recommended that the Applicant be separated with an Honorable characterization of service due to his numerous instances of misconduct.  In the second endorsement, the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, concurred with the CG’s recommendation.  In the third endorsement, however, the DC, M&RA on behalf of CMC, after reviewing the applicable law and regulations, the Applicant’s RILFAP, the Report of Misconduct, and the chain of command’s endorsement, recommended approving the RILFAP, but with separation with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service despite acknowledging the mitigating role of his significant mental health issues.

In making its determination, the NDRB considered the totality of the Applicant’s service both his misconduct and also his overall service to the Marine Corps, to include his fitness report history and awarding of three Navy and Marine Corps Commendations medals and a Joint Service Commendation Medal.  The NDRB also considered that his misconduct was a significant negative aspect within his military career but did not find that it rose to constitute a significant departure of military conduct in the context of his service given the mitigation afforded by his mental health condition, which is why his command did not pursue an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions or punitive discharge, which it could have pursued subsequent to the Applicant’s considerable misconduct.  The CMC exercised liberal consideration in terminating the Applicant’s first processing for administrative for separation, and was magnanimous in getting the Applicant treatment.  While his Alcohol Use Disorder and Generalized Anxiety with Panic Disorder mitigated some of his original misconduct, it did not mitigate his refusal to adhere to his treatment and commit additional misconduct, which ultimately led the command to pursue an administrative separation for the second time, less than a year after terminating the first proceeding.  The Applicant was discharged due to misconduct; not separated upon expiration of or fulfillment of his service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the period of service, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record.

The Applicant contends that his mental health conditions contributed to his misconduct.  While the Applicant may feel his mental health condition was the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Based on a review of the Applicant’s service and medical records and available evidence, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation due to Misconduct and it is appropriate to characterize the Applicant’s service as General.  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 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 (OTHER) with a corresponding separation code of BKM1.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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