ex- ENFA, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20220330
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-146 [DRUG ABUSE] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20150909	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20180913	Highest Rank/Rate:  ENFN
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  05  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  47
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.4 (5)   Behavior/Conduct:  1.8 (5)   OTA:  2.73 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Rifle  Pistol  NDSM GWOTSM GWOTEM 

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

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

NJP:  2

- 20170705:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 112 (Drunk on duty) 
	Awarded:  RIR RESTR EPD FOP
	Suspended:  NONE [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record dated 20170726]

- 20180215:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance) 
	Awarded:  RESTR EPD RIR FOP
	Suspended:  RIR

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20180215:	For Captain’s Mast on 15 February 2018.

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:  PO2 Lissette Pedraza, USN
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 32, effective 07 September 2010 until 8 October 2019, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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 her mental health condition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and military sexual trauma (MST) were mitigating factors in her misconduct.
2.	BOARD ISSUE – For a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.
Discussion

Date:  20230628		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 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.  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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant contends her mental health condition, PTSD, and MST were mitigating factors in her misconduct.

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

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

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience partially mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/ behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes, likely, at least, an undiagnosed Adjustment Disorder spectrum condition beginning by Adolescence and preceded by likely subjection to Childhood Sexual Trauma.	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes, see above	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Technically, not; but warranting consideration of clemency under Wilkie guidance 
	
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:	Received:  GEN
Narrative:  MISCONDUCT – DRUG ABUSE
Sep Code:  GKK (board)
RE Code:  4
Discharged From:  
Highest Rate:  E3

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

19 Jul 1995:  DOB
Education Level:  12 
MEPS:  AFQT:  47
Not enlisted on a drug waiver

09 Sep 2015—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 20

10 &29 Sep 2015—HCG QL NEG

30 Jun 2017: “Sensitive lab, see AHLTA. Aircraft Mishap…Comment:  LEGAL PURPOSES [significance unknown]”

30 Jun 2017: Alcohol …Range Abnormal Ethanol 187 mg/dL  

30 Jun 2017—EMERGENCY  DEPT ADMISSION:  RELEASED 1325:

06 Jul 2017—NMCPHC HRA Participant Report - 7/6/2017:
“My partner and I are not using birth control.”

Encounter for pregnancy test, result negative (Z32.02)

22 Nov 2017—hCG Panel Urine:  NEGATIVE

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

10 Jan 2018—
Chief Complaint is: Vaginal discharge ( 619-840-6502) --22yo G1, P0 with LMP 11/05/2017 presents to GYN clinic for c/o vaginal discharge.

“Patient is pregnant or plans to conceive in the next 6 months…”  However, her urinary hCG Pregnancy test was negative and, consistently ; so over time.  Hence, it is unlikely she was pregnant at that time. 

- 20180215:  For Captain’s Mast on 15 February 2018. Refused to sign.

19 Jul 2018—DD FORM 2697:
    #10—OVERALL HEALTH:  THE SAME
    #11 – 18:  “NO’s”

20 Jul 2018—hCG Panel Urine on 20 Jul 2018:
hCG NEGATIVE

24 Jul 2018—SEPARATION PHYSICAL EXAM:
“30. EXAMINER'S SUMMARY AND ELABORATION OF ALL PERTINENT DATA (Physician/practitioner shall comment on all positive answers in questions 10- 29. Physician/practitioner may develop by interview any additional medical history deemed important, and record any
significant findings here.)
a. COMMENTS
…12c. Chronic LBP px since 2014 prior to military service. Onset of LBP px due to prolonged standing and describes it as 5/10 non- radiating dull px localized to the right paraspinal muscles at aprox L3/L4. Pt denies any fix of trauma, neuro defects, or loss of strength. Pt has not been evaluated by medical. Pt instructed to f/u with VA after separation.  12i. Bilateral knee px since age of 9. Knee px presents dull, 5/10 with prolonged standing, distance runs, and cold weather. Pt denies any hx of trauma, neuro defects, or loss of strength. Pt has not been evaluated by medical. Pt instructed to f/u with VA after separation.
131. Pt states pos Chlamydia prior to military service. Pt was seen on 17Jul18 at NASN1 primary care and tested pos for gonorrhea. Ahlta record shows no medication tx provided. Will contact provider to determine need for treatment in clinic and rx as needed.
-Member is currently fit for full duty.
-Fully medically ready verified via MILRS/AHLTA/NAVMED 6150/25
-No pending appointments or referrals.
-No hx TBI, SI/1-11. Not currently treating with Mental Health. No current medication prescriptions.
-Pt is suitable for separation.
Physical exam conducted for separation. No medical concerns at this time…”
 
23 Jul 2018—hCG:  NEGATIVE

07 Aug 2018—hCG:  NEGATIVE

13 Sep 2018—DISCHARGE:  UOTHC

POST SEPARATION:
Has a 12 year old daughter, a constructive relationship with the father, occupational success and a desire to be a community support.

COMMENT:  The Applicant was reared in a family broken by divorce which left her in the custody of her mother who strongly favored her older brother by seven years, such that she felt continually the unvalued sibling.  At about age 7 she fell prey to repeated sexual abuse by her older brother which she dealt with by memory suppression to the point of unacknowledged dream like fuzzy recollection.  During adolescence depression and feelings of unworthiness led to promiscuous submission to abusive boyfriends—a pattern she continued while on active duty along with working extra hard but found herself feeling, for the most part, unrewarded in favor of her socially favored male crewmates in the almost entirely male hierarchy to which she responded by turning to alcohol.  Her former co-worker witness at the PAH confirmed the atmosphere she described wherein available support resources received mention but with inadequate guidance or expectation of their use…She became increasingly depressed with transient suicidal ideation and a feeling of lack of acceptance amounting to the continuation of what was, likely, minimally, an Adjustment Disorder of Adolescence continuing in early adult life compounded by her circumstances forcing her to face the depressing reality of her childhood sexual abuse.  Ironically, on questioning, she indicated her THC positive urine was totally non-voluntary and not a conscious attempt to treat her depression but, rather, the product of the unknown presence of THC in a desert at a party.  Ironically, none of the forgoing is technically mitigating for the presence of a proscribed substance.  It, also, remains difficult to prove non-voluntary, consumption of a proscribed substance despite the Applicant’s otherwise reasonably decent duty performance record.  All that said, while technical aspects of subject petition do not precisely fit mitigation/exculpatory guidance, consideration as a matter of clemency and equity may be indicated in keeping with guidance contained in the “Wilkie” Memo.	

The Applicant’s DD Form 293 noted she told her chain of command multiple times she had mental health issues due to rape.  She contends she was in a downwards spiral and the Navy did nothing to help her but send her to rehab and kick her out.  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.  In this case, the Board found insufficient evidence in the record for any indications of, or diagnosis for, a Mental Health Diagnosis stemming MST and PTSD, which would substantiate a connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and challenges incurred from a mental health condition.  Additionally, the Applicant’s record does not document any attempts to seek help for any mental health symptoms while in service.  The Applicant directly communicated to the Board during her hearing she was not sexually assaulted while in-service.  Medical documentation covering approximately three years noted the Applicant denied trauma, depression, symptoms of psychosis, mania, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideations/behavior during routine medical appointments and medical visits for misconduct related to alcohol and drug use.  However, the Applicant did communicate during her hearing that she was sexually abused as a child by someone close to her.  Based on her aforementioned DD Form 293 statement, she was asked if she disclosed this to anyone in her chain of command, to military medical authorities, or used any professional military resources intended to help in these situations, she stated she had not, but did disclose it to a corpsman she was dating at the time.

With respect to her misconduct, the Applicant was taken to NJP on 5 July 2017 for violation of Article 92 and 112 for showing to work intoxicated.  The Applicant was sent to Naval Medical Center San Diego and administered a breathalyzer, which registered her BAC at .187.  While the Applicant stated during her hearing she drank because of this pre-service sexual abuse, her medical record over a three year period noted she denied a history of trauma, anxiety, and depression.  Additionally, she acknowledged to military medical professionals this alcohol related incident stemmed from the fact that she tried tequila for the first time and consumed more than she intended to on a work night.  The Applicant received her second NJP on 15 February 2018 for testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol after returning from leave.  Here, the Applicant told the Board she unknowingly consumed brownies at a party that were made with marijuana while on annual leave in Chicago.  The Board found no nexus between her unknowing consumption of marijuana and her pre-service sexual trauma.  Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if 

adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  While the Applicant’s record lacked administrative separation (ADSEP) notification proceedings, she did exercise her right to qualified counsel and an ADSEP board (ASB), which convened on 27 June 2018.  Based on her record, the Board presumed her ASB recommended separation with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) characterization of service given her separation authority ultimately separated her with this characterization and issued her a narrative reason for separation of misconduct – drug abuse.  The Applicant communicated during her hearing that she did not disclose her sexual abuse during her ASB.  The Applicant was ultimately separated on 13 September 2018.

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 consideration for all these factors, to include weighing the severity of the misconduct in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the majority of the Board determined the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  While the minority Board Member in the case empathized with the Applicant’s pre-service sexual abuse and looked past her alcohol related misconduct, the minority did not find the Applicant’s claim of accidental consumption of marijuana at a party while on leave to be a mitigating nexus and deserving of clemency.  Many servicemembers endure difficult upbringings and significant pre-service challenges, but manage to service honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  The minority Board Member found an Under Honorable Condition (General) an appropriate characterization of service in this case and consistent with the characterization of discharge given to others in similar circumstances.  However, by majority rule, the Board found a change in characterization of service to Honorable appropriate.  Relief granted.

Issue 2:  Board issue for a change to the Narrative Reason for Discharge.

The Board found a change to the Narrative Reason for Separation to Secretarial Authority was authorized and warranted.  The NDRB has broad authority to review Department of the Navy discharges.  In accordance with SECNAVMAN 5420.1, ¶ 214 (Review on Motion of the NDRB) the NDRB may initiate a Discharge Review even without an Applicant’s request up until the discharge date exceeds 15 years.  The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis, and if such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Further, the NDRB does not require an applicant to make an express or implied contention; specifically, under ¶ 211 (Applications) an “applicant is encouraged, but not required, to identify an issue or issues as pertaining to the propriety or the equity of the discharge.” Thus, under ¶ 212 (Procedural Rights of the Applicant) the NDRB will consider that a request for review from an applicant who does not have an Honorable Discharge will be treated as a request for a change to an Honorable Discharge.  Similarly, an applicant may request a specific change in the narrative reason for separation.  If an applicant does not request a specific change in the reason for discharge, the Board will presume that the request for review does not involve a request for change in the reason for discharge.  However, this presumption does not waive “the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant’s discharge, the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.”  Although highlighting the NDRB’s authority to review and change the narrative reason for discharge, the Board noted that “an applicant may not receive a less favorable discharge than that issued at the time of separation.” ¶ 207 (Objective of Review).

Consequently, the Board held that it is authorized to make a change to the narrative reason for discharge; reasserted (without necessarily repeating in this section) all the reasons stated above for warranting a change to the characterization of service, and summarized the following considerations concerning the change to the narrative reason for discharge.  Specifically, the Board held that the narrative reason for separation should be Secretarial Authority.  Again reasserting all the reasons stated above that supported the Board’s decision to warrant a change to the characterization of service, and in accordance with the principles of liberal consideration, the Board held that mitigation should also be given to the narrative reason for discharge.  In other words, the Board found that because the Applicant’s Mental Health excused/mitigated the maliciousness/willful nature of the misconduct enough to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service then it also rationally applied to the narrative reason for which the Applicant was discharged.  In essence, the Board found that the underlying narrative reason for the Applicant’s discharge is not misconduct, but the Applicant’s inability for continued naval service.  As such, the Board held the Applicant’s overall service should be deemed honorable with a commensurate narrative reason for discharge.

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

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or 

for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.  Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons.  Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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