ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20240731
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20150519	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20190131	Highest Rank/Rate:  PFC
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  08  Month(s)  12  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  57
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.1 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.1 (NFIR)
Fitness Reports:  

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  3
- 20160126:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)  
	Awarded:  FOP RESRT    Suspended:    
- 20171229:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Awarded:  RESTR EPD FOP  Suspended:   
- 20180308:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)  
	Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)  
	Article 134 (Bringing discredit towards USMC) 
	Awarded:  FOP RESRT    Suspended:  

SCM:  1
- 20181108:   Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)
	Sentence:  RIR E-1 FOP RESRT HARD LABOR (45) DAYS
	CA:  The accused waived his rights to submit matters pursuant to R.C.M. 1105. In the case of U.S. V. [Applicant], the sentence is approved and will be executed. The Record of Trail is forwarded to the Regional Review officer, Legal Services Support Section East, for review by a judge advocate in accordance with Article 64, UCMJ.

Retention Warning Counseling:  3
- 20160126:	For violation of articles 92 resulting in NJP.
- 20171229:	For violation of articles 92 resulting in Company level NJP.
- 20180308:	For violation of articles 92, 121, and 134 resulting in Battalion level NJP.

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:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 26 November 2013 until 14 February 2019, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

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 administrative separation proceeding was conducted improperly.
2.	The Applicant contends his punishment was overly harsh.
3.	The Applicant believes his inservice and post service conduct warrants relief.
4.	The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for VA benefits.
5.	The Applicant contends his traumatic brain injury (TBI) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
6.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
7.	The Applicant contends his mental health condition was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20250529		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment in support of Operation INHERENT RESOLVE.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

-For violation of articles 92 resulting in NJP.
-For violation of articles 92 resulting in Company level NJP.
-For violation of articles 92, 121, and 134 resulting in Battalion level NJP.

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
Article 134 (General article)

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)

:  The Applicant contends his administrative separation proceeding was conducted improperly.

According to the brief provided on behalf of the Applicant, the Marine Corps failed to properly refer the Applicant to substance abuse counselling, failed to adequately document his urinalysis and failed to separate him in a timely manner.  

In regards to the improper referral of the Applicant for substance abuse counselling, the Board determined the following.  The Applicant was subject to company level NJP for underage drinking.  The Applicant’s subsequent illegal use of drugs, verified through urinalysis occurred on 12 July 2018.  The command was informed of the positive urinalysis on 7 August 2018.  The Applicant was referred to substance abuse counselling and refused treatment on 7 September 2018.  Whereas the Applicant should have received counselling after his first infraction of underage drinking the Applicant was offered assistance for substance abuse after his positive urinalysis for THC.  The Applicant then willfully refused treatment.  The Board acknowledges that his first unit failed to follow protocols to ensure the Applicant received substance abuse education.  The Board also acknowledges that the unit that separated the Applicant did refer the Applicant to the SACO within 48 hours of notification.  The original unit’s failure and separating unit’s referral timeline for the positive drug test was determined to be immaterial in substantiating impropriety especially in light of the Applicant’s refusal to accept assistance and no acknowledgement from the Applicant that a substance abuse problem was a mitigating circumstance in the continuous misconduct observed in the record.

Also in question was the propriety of the urinalysis conducted on 12 July 2018.  Reflected in the Applicant’s official military personnel file is a printout of the Applicant’s drug testing results from.  This document clearly shows the Applicant’s DODID number and positive test result for THC.  Included in the record is also the testing register, specimen custody document and chain of custody tracking sheet that properly reflect the Applicant’s urine sample was taken and processed properly.  The Board determined no impropriety existed.

Lastly, the Applicant believes his discharge to be improper given the timeliness of command actions leading to a delay of 75 days after notification of separation.  The Applicant received notification of separation proceedings on 16 October 2018 for the primary basis of pattern of misconduct and secondary basis of drug abuse.  The Applicant acknowledged his rights on 18 October 2018 and agreed to waive his separation board, accept summary court martial and other than honorable characterization in lieu of special court martial on 8 November 2018.  The administrative separation processing was completed and the Applicant was notified of the separating authority’s decision on 23 January 2019.  The Applicant was separated 8 days after notification of separation from the separating authority not 75.  The Board determined no impropriety existed and no relief granted on this basis.

:  The Applicant contends his punishment was overly harsh.

The Applicant implies he was treated unfairly by his command.  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 the command treated him unfairly.  The Applicant’s service included three retention warnings, three nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 92, 121, and 134 and one summary court martial for violation of article 112a of the UCMJ.  Violations of UCMJ Article 92, 112a, 121, and 134 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized.  Moreover, the Applicant freely entered into a plea agreement to waive his right to an ADSEP board, accept an other than honorable discharge and accept summary court martial in lieu of special court martial proceedings.  Relief denied.

3: The Applicant believes his in-service and post service conduct warrants relief.

The Applicant states his character is demonstrated by his job performance which is further demonstrated in his post service conduct as a father.  The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The 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.  However, post-service conduct does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the Applicant during the period of service that is the subject of the discharge review.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.

4: The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities and qualify for VA benefits.

The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of facilitating access to VA benefits.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  The VA conducts its own determination of eligibility based on service records and input from an Applicant upon their request.  The Applicant should refer to the Veterans Administration website www.va.gov/discharge-upgrade-instructions for additional assistance regarding a benefit determination review.  Additionally, VA-run Vet Centers also provide lifelong free mental health counseling regardless of discharge status.  To find your local Vet Center, go to www.va.gov/find-locations and search for “Vet Centers” under Facility type.

5-7:  The Applicant contends his PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues were mitigating factors 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 not have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition did not exist 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 (No in-service mental health diagnoses or evidence of TBI/head trauma; post-service PTSD, depression, panic disorder)  	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	No 	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)  	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes 	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	 
The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files, submitted materials, and all other information lends to the following conclusions: the applicant was not diagnosed, treated, or complained of any mental health conditions during active-duty service and denied any head trauma, TBI or LOC during military service.  Post-service the applicant has been diagnosed and treated for PTSD, depression and panic disorder/anxiety and has developed a seizure disorder. There is no convincing evidence from the medical records that any of the applicant’s actions were influenced by any PTSD symptomatology during his military service and at the time of his misconduct. There is no indication that PTSD or other mental health symptoms existed during the time of his misconduct on active-duty or had an impact on his ability to make sound judgment, control his behavior, appreciate moral differences, or distinguish between permissible and prohibited behavior. While contemporary medical authorities may presume that previous TBI(s) during military service may have occurred and may be responsible for the applicant’s more recent diagnosis of seizures, there is no evidence in the medical records of the applicant being diagnosed with or complaining of any TBI symptoms and also documenting the applicant denying any TBI occurrences during active-duty service. 
 
Based on this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health or claim of TBI. 	

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 determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  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 Applicant’s in-service conduct included three nonjudicial punishments for violation of Article 92, 121 and 134 of the UCMJ and one summary court martial for violation of article 112a.  This misconduct represents willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  These infractions demonstrated a sustained inability to abide by the rules and regulations of military service that began during his initial training and continued throughout his service.

The Applicant contends his TBI, PTSD and mental health were mitigating factors in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record contains no diagnosis of any of these issues.  In fact, the record specifically documents that the Applicant was screened for these conditions and found none of them to be present at the time of separation.  However, the Applicant provides post-service documentation which supports the Applicant’s contention that his PTSD, TBI and mental health were mitigating factors associated with in-service misconduct that occurred after December 2017 and his deployment.  The Applicant purports that he was forced to obey orders tantamount to war crimes that consisted of the innocent murder of civilians deemed acceptable collateral damage in the coalition’s efforts to clear fighters.  The Applicant also contends that the amount of artillery fire that he was in proximity with was likely the cause for his TBI symptoms.  The Applicant specifically cites this possibility based on a Marine Corps study into the effects of artillery operations.

The NDRB determined that these arguments lacked credibility and applied inappropriate supporting material.  The Applicant provides no substantiating evidence that misconduct occurred in the conduct of combat operations that a traumatic incident occurred and that he was given unlawful orders.  In addition, the use of the Marine Corps artillery study demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the results, purpose and intent of the study.  The subjects most impacted in the study were artillery Marines not infantry Marines on the gunline responsible for firing, loading, unloading and maintaining the operational readiness of the weapons.  This was not a relevant study to those operating a distance away from the gunline such as those working in a forward observer capacity like the Applicant.  The Board found no existence of any in-service mitigating conditions and no nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and post service diagnosis.  The Board found no grounds for relief under liberal considerations.

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 (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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