Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230510
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-144 [CIVIL CONVICTION] 

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:	 20010711 - 20050623  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20050624	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20100520	Highest Rank/Rate:  ABF2
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  10  Month(s)  27  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  35
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (5)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.2 (5)   OTA: 3.83 
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NMCAM(2) NUC NAVY "E" MUC GCM NDSM HSM GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR EAWS 

Periods of UA:  20090430 - 20100520, 1 Year, 21 Days
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

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

CC:  1

- 20100126:	Offense:  Three counts of aggravated sex battery.
	Sentence: 30 years incarcerated with 20 years suspended. 

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20141028
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	ND14-01169
NDRB Documentary Review 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 29, effective 10 November 2009 until 19 September 2011, Article 1910-144, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Civilian Conviction. 

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 undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

Discussion

Date:  20231113		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

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

The Applicant's record of service included:

:  The Applicant contends his undiagnosed PTSD was a mitigating factor in his 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 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?	 USN:  No formal mental health related evaluation or treatment health record entries (including PTSD) appear in the available records submitted contemporary with the Applicant’s enlistment.  However, surviving records relevant to misconduct, per se, including the Applicant’s recollections, suggest the retrospective minimal presence of conditions in the Marital Problem, Adjustment Disorder Alcohol Use Disorder diagnostic spectrum is at least inferable. 
 Post Discharge VA: 
Effective 8 May 2018: 50% Disability Service Connection for PTSD with a
31 May 2019: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood added. 	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	See above.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Not significantly mitigating.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Record is incomplete.  However, presumably yes in the context of military and civilian proceedings normal to the processing of the stated misconduct.  It is noted health records covering the approximately 8.5-year period of confinement were not made available. 	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	(Any added bolding is for emphasis)

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Education Level:   High School

1997: Immigration to USA.

MEPS:  
     AFQT:   35

31 Jul 2002—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 20 (“I joined the Navy right after high school in 2001 [age 19]”)

[From Personal Statement (FPS)]:  “During my first deployment, I deployed to the gulf area in support of operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. During this time, I served proudly and honorable and earned a Navy achievement medal, a good conduct medal, and several positive reviews from my senior supervisors (please see attached documents). I decided to reenlist again for 4 more years, and my proud service continued. During this time, I deployed to  for humanitarian mission after Hurricane Katrina…[devastated] the area [in 2005]. My exemplary service during this time was seen by my supervisors and even awarded me a letter of commendation…”

FPS:  “In early 2006, I received orders for my next duty station at in Virginia Beach, VA, but before departing the, I earned a second Navy achievement medal for my honorary and exemplary military service.”  

FPS:  “Within a noticeably brief time after arriving at my second duty station, I made Petty officer second class and was put as assistant duty section leader, a position of higher responsibility and duties. 

FPS: 

 “During the [7 Sep?] 2007 airshow at, I witnessed the death of a pilot [DEATH OF A STUNT PILOT reported in Google posting] that was performing for the airshow. I recall not understanding what was happening and just went about my business. I stared to go to family therapy shortly after because according to my wife at the time, my behavior had changed. I attended multiple therapy session with both my wife and stepdaughter…, but sadly I never completed the sessions as I received orders to my third duty station, the in May 2008.  I recall not understanding what was happening and just went about my business. 

I started to go to family therapy shortly after because according to my wife at the time, my behavior had changed. I attended multiple therapy session with both my wife [her account not locatable] and stepdaughter…, but sadly I never completed the sessions as I received orders to my third duty station, the  Virginia in May 2008.

Upon my arrival back to in late 2008, my behavior was different, I was drinking, and demanding more sexual activities from my wife. This continued for a few months until I decided to have an affair since what my wife was providing was not enough. During the 3-4-month affair, I lost my wife, my stepdaughter and home. Because of my criminal behavior with my lover's child, I was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with only to serve 10 years [reportedly reduced for “good behavior”].”

Service Medical Record PDF scan:  No Mental Health diagnoses.
 
20 May 2010—DISCHARGE:  UOTH MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION) from the  after a 7 year 9 month 20 day enlistment ENLISTMENT Details include:
 Performance/Proficiency: 4.0 (5)   Behavior/Conduct: 4.2 (5)   OTA: 3.83

POST SEPARATION:

2018-2019—Estimated time of release from Virginia prison after serving 8.5 years. 

15 Jan 2019—VA RECORD:  “The records reflect that you arc a Veteran of the Gulf War Era. You served in the Navy from J 11, 2001, to July 10, 2005 and from July 11, 2005, to May 20, 2010. We received a request to reopen a previous claim on July 20, 2018. Based on a review of the evidence listed below, we…[established Service Connection for PTSD with an evaluation of 50% effective 8 May 2018]”

31 May 2019—VA HAMPTON, VA “Mental Health Physician” note included:  
 
“his mood seems to be worse with the bupropion. He endorses feeling more depressed and having increased irritability with the bupropion. He reported that he was feeling better with the paroxetine but he had sexual side effects. We discussed his medication options and he agreed to be tried on mirtazapine to
help with his PTSD symptoms and depression since it is not known to have sexual side effects. He reported that the trazodone is helping with his sleep and he also takes prazosin for his nightmares. He was advised that he will not combine the mirtazapine and trazodone since both can cause sedation.
Denies any psychotic symptoms. Denies manic symptoms. Denies suicidal or homicidal ideations or plans. Denies drinking or illegal drug use. He denies any use of cigarettes. He reported that he is still on probation and he is doing good with his school at ECPI taking electronic engineering. He has been
attending the PTSD group therapy with Dr. … and this has been helping him also. He reported that he might start working night shift at STIHL soon.

Meds tried- paroxetine was helpful but caused sexual side effects, bupropion which made him more irritable and depressed

MSE: Casually dressed, adequately groomed,calm, pleasant, cooperative, alert, oriented x3. Speech coherent and relevant with normal rate and tone. Good eye contact. Thoughts well organized. No delusions or hallucinations elicited.
Mood and affect are less dysphoric. He denies any current lethal ideations.
Insight and judgement not impaired at this time…”
DIAGNOSIS…: PTSD
                            Adjustment disorder with depressed mood”

03 June 2023—VA Rating Decision:  Increased previous 50% disability rating to 100% as follows.  “Basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance based on permanent and total disability status is established from June 3, 2022”

COMMENT: 

No formal mental health related evaluation or treatment health record entries appear in the available records submitted contemporary with the Applicant’s enlistment (i.e., Service Treatment Record) other than the misconduct, per se and the Applicant’s recollections as noted above.  
 
Against a formative background highlighted by reported immigration to the USA in 1997, the Applicant initiated his enlistment process following high school graduation and went on to establish a respectable record of professional achievement.

General observations include the following:  The absence of mental health related clinical records contemporary with the Applicant’s Active Service (Service Treatment Records), and no comprehensive, complete mental health related clinical history and or formative evaluation of evolution of clinical symptoms leading to the VA’s recorded diagnostic conclusion of PTSD. Nor do the available Service Treatment Records contain any mental health related diagnostic or treatment entries. Evidence of exposure to traumatic stressors during enlistment was limited to the Applicant’s recollection of exposure to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina of 2003 as part of a USN Relief Mission and his claim to have witnessed the unfortunate 7 Sep 2007 death of a Stunt Pilot at an Air Show.  While there was no reported immediate psychological reaction, the Applicant claimed the later to have been followed by behavioral changes including “drinking” and other behavior resulting in the misconduct leading to his OTH discharge incident to his civilian conviction and serving an 8.5 year confinement of an originally 30 year sentence.  His PAH testimony included taking responsibility for his misconduct, including acknowledging his awareness of the involuntary nature of the involvement of the child victim which he concludes would not have occurred had his much later recognized PTSD, somehow, been diagnosed and treated early on. Unfortunately, potentially  clarifying medical records contemporary with the Applicant’s confinement were not available.    

Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD…  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…”  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”).  Sadly, the magnitude of the misconduct taken in the context of the above guidance, and despite an, otherwise, impressive service record and post discharge achievement, provides insufficient support for significant mitigation at this time.	

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

In this case, the Board found the Applicant engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The Board determined that his command acted appropriately to initiate administrative separation given that in January 2010, the Applicant was convicted in civilian court for three counts of sexual battery of a child and sentenced to 30 years confinement in jail. The offense for which the Applicant was convicted in a civilian court, is covered under Article 120 (Aggravated sexual assault of a child) of the UCMJ, and warrants an unfavorable 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.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.  

While the Board acknowledges the Applicant’s U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating, 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 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 deliberate and significant in nature. In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense.  Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION) with a corresponding separation code of HKB, 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, go to https://www.va.gov/find-locations/?facilityType=health.