, ex-YNSR, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230131
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-164 [BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE]

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:  20070409	Age at Enlistment:  21
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20080317	Highest Rank/Rate:  YNSA
Length of Service:  00  Year(s)  11  Month(s)  09  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  84
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  2.0 (1)   Behavior/Conduct:  1.0 (1)   OTA:  1.33
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NDSM GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:  

NJP:  1

- 20080307:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)
	Awarded:  RIR FOP RESRT EPD
	Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20070502:	For a negative entry on your Recruit Personnel Data Record (Hard Card) to include: Difficulty passing the academic testing requirements as evidenced by your double test one academic failures and sub-standard performance.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):  20100526
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:  ND09-02153
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Conducted (date):  20130819
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Conducted Docket Number:  ND12-01626
NDRB Personal Appearance Hearing Conducted Findings:  Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

	DD 214:		Service/Medical Record:		Other Records:	
	Employment:		Finances:		Education/Training:	
	Health/Medical Records:		Rehabilitation/Treatment:		Criminal Records:	
	Personal Documentation:		Community Service:		References:	
	Department of VA letter:		Other Documentation:	

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

	Witness E-1:			Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 11, effective 1 June 2005 until 21 May 2008, Article 1910-164, SEPARATION BY REASON OF BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE (BIOTS).

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 his characterization of service is inequitable due to the totality of the circumstances and contends his post-service accomplishments warrant consideration for an upgrade.
2.	The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to unsatisfactory counsel concerning his administrative separation.
3.	The Applicant contends he should have received an Entry Level Separation (ELS) prior to his arrival at his first duty station due to a medical condition.
4.	The Applicant contends his separation was not approved by the proper separation authority.
Discussion

Date:  20231010		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.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW: Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge.

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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant contends his characterization of service is inequitable due to the totality of the circumstances and contends his post-service accomplishments warrant consideration for an upgrade.

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 Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.  The NDRB considers 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.  The Applicant provided a personal statement, 

evidence of a Bachelor of Science degree from Colorado State University and continuous employment, numerous character references, and documentation indicating homeownership.  Furthermore, he provided documentation demonstrating the completion of a Juris Master, American Legal Studies in December, 2022.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB 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 his discharge was improper due to unsatisfactory counsel concerning his administrative separation.

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his command treated him unjustly or that his discharge was improper due to unsatisfactory counsel concerning his administrative separation.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

The Applicant’s service included one NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 112a.  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 (ADSEP) regardless of grade or time in service.  The Applicant tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol on 19 February 2008.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  The Applicant was notified of ADSEP on 16 March 2008 and waived his right to qualified counsel, an ADSEP board (ASB), and a statement.

If the Applicant felt there were mitigating circumstances to his ADSEP it was his obligation to contest those charges or present his mitigating circumstances at the time they were made.  During an ASB he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges.  Moreover, the government is not required to provide counsel when notifying a service member of ADSEP proceedings, it is the service member’s responsibility to elected qualified counsel when filling out and signing ADSEP notification proceedings (NAVPERS 1910/31).  It’s also important to point out this document clearly notes separation proceedings will be suspended for a period of two days from the date the notice is delivered to the service member in order for the member to exercise their rights (counsel, ASB, statements) set forth in the document.  The Applicant submitted insufficient evidence to support his contention, therefore, the Board relied on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of Government affairs.

:  The Applicant contends his separation was not approved by the proper separation authority.

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his separation was not approved by the proper separation authority.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Documentation dated 16 March 2008 from Commander, Carrier Strike Group NINE to Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN provided authority to discharge the Applicant with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service for misconduct – drug abuse, and assigned a reentry code of RE-4.  The Applicant’s ADSEP documentation would have been reviewed by a legal advisor to the separation authority and there is no indication anyone other than the separation authority made the decision to separate the Applicant with an UOTHC characterization of service for misconduct – drug abuse.  It was well within the commander’s prerogative to provide by direction signature authority to members of his staff.  The NDRB found no impropriety in the Applicant’s ADSEP proceedings.

4:  The Applicant contends he should have received an ELS prior to his arrival at his first duty station due to a medical condition.

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 – Adjustment Disorder (military & VA); PTSD (civilian)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unclear – final physical not found	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant, a Navy veteran, was discharged in 2008 for violating service drug policy.  In rebutting his discharge characterization, the Applicant contends that ongoing mental health conditions (later diagnosed as PTSD) mitigates his misconduct and should serve to upgrade his discharge characterization.  The Applicant submitted multiple letters and other documentation supporting his post-service diagnosis.

The Applicant’s case has twice been considered by the NDRB (2010 & 2013) and by the BCNR in 2018, and has been previously upgraded from Other-than-Honorable (Misconduct) to General (Secretary Authority).

Brief timeline:
09 Apr 2007 – Enlistment
10 & 18 Apr 2007 – REU visits (Occupational Problem)
20 Aug 2007 – Arrived for duty, 
25 Jan 2008 – Shipboard mental health visit (Occupational Problem)
28 Jan 2008 – Shipboard mental health visit (Adjustment Disorder)
19 Feb 2008 – (+) UDS (THC)
07 Mar 2008 – NJP (Art 112a)
13 Mar 2008 –deployed
17 Mar 2008 – Discharge

13 Jun 2011 – Civilian letter (diagnosed with PTSD)
Feb/Jul 2013 – Mental health visits (PTSD)
15 Mar 2016 – VA denial of service-connection for PTSD
22 Dec 2016 – Civilian follow-up visit (PTSD)
25 Feb 2019 – Civilian letter (anxiety)

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	Two notes taken from the Applicant’s time at boot camp demonstrate generalized lack of motivation and difficulty with adapting to military life.  The Applicant also made statements about self-harm, but later stated these were attempts at achieving a discharge.
2.	Two notes taken from the Applicant’s shipboard mental health department depict further adjustment difficulties as manifested by low mood, sleep disruptions, and other depressive symptoms.  The Applicant was trialed on a psychotropic medication.
3.	The was scheduled to deploy in March 2008.
4.	Based on the limited information presented in the medical file, I find it as likely as not that the Applicant was experiencing stressors related to his poor adaptation to the military/shipboard life.  I do not, however, find evidence of significant thought or mood impairment as to convincingly indicate the Applicant could not make clear, goal-directed decisions concerning Navy regulations and the use of marijuana.
5.	As stated in the Kurta memo, "[l]iberal 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."  In this case, no sufficient justification (facts or circumstances) has been presented as to overcome the significance of the misconduct.

Based this information, I do not find a fully-mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.  The Applicant’s current discharge characterization adequately captures the balance between his misconduct and his mental health condition.	

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 UOTHC 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’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.  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, based on the aforementioned comments by the Board’s Medical Officer, the Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct, nor do they warrant an Honorable characterization of service.  Moreover, the government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention he should have been separated with an ELS for a condition, not a disability (CND) prior to arriving at his first fleet unit.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

The Board found no documentation indicating the Applicant was recommended by medical professionals to be separated for a CND.  The Applicant contends he was told by a recruiter he could leave basic training at any point and became frustrated after realizing this was untrue.  Documentation indicated this led to a lack of motivation and performance during training, which the Applicant assumed would lead to his separation.  He received a retention warning counseling on 2 May 2007 due to substandard performance after academic failures, and it appeared he made self-harm statements in an attempt to a achieve a discharge after he found out he was unable to walk away from his enlistment.  The Applicant arrived at the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN in August 2007 and was seen in January 2008 for occupational stressors and an adjustment disorder – linked to his discontent with boat life, low mood, sleep disruptions, and other depressive symptoms.  He was slated to deploy with the carrier in March 2008 and tested positive for marijuana on 19 February 2008.  The Board’s Medical Officer found no evidence of significant thought or mood impairment to convincingly indicate the Applicant could not make clear, goal-directed decisions concerning Navy regulations and the use of marijuana, and the Board found his marijuana use, more likely than not, an attempt 
to get out of his imminent deployment.  The Board was challenged to find his civilian PTSD diagnosis mitigating for drug use and it appeared he was denied a disability rating by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for PTSD specifically.  While the Applicant was service connected for an adjustment disorder by the VA, the NDRB is not bound by VA decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB.  Decisions reached by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Navy.  The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy and Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge characterization.

The Board found the Applicant’s misconduct a gross lack of judgement that was in contrast to the Navy’s core values.  Simply stated – liberal consideration does not mandate an Honorable characterization of service and the Board found one unwarranted in this case.  The Applicant served less than one year on active duty and violated the service drug policy, which he acknowledged on 9 April 2007 during the military entrance process.  The Board found BCNR had already given a tremendous amount of liberal consideration in the form of an upgrade to a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service and an amendment to his narrative reason for separation from misconduct – drug abuse to Secretarial Authority.  In making its determination the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his drug use 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’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, and the awarded characterization of service is appropriate.  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  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), 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.

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.