ex- LCpl, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20240821
Characterization of Service Received:   UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6419 [IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  NONE	             	Active:  NONE

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20100816	Age at Enlistment:  18
Period of Enlistment: 4 Years NO Extention
Date of Discharge:  20150602	Highest Rank/Rate: LCpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  21  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  76
Deployment/Operation:  ENDURING FREEDOM 07OCT01-31DEC14

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.4 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.4 (NFIR)
Fitness Reports:  NOT APPLICABLE

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle SS NUC NDSM GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR 

Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  20130527 - 20140815, 446 days

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

Retention Warning Counseling:  2

- 20130510:	For eligible, but not recommended for promotion due to pending legal action.
- 20150515:	For eligible, but not recommended for promotion due to recent pending legal action. 

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.  Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16), effective 26 November 2013 until 14 February 2019.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SECRETARIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY DIRECTED DECISION

On 10 September 2025, the Secretarial Review Authority (SRA) set aside the NDRB’s Decision to change the Applicant’s Discharge to GENERAL; and directed the Applicant’s discharge shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS (UOTH).

On 15 May 2025, following a Documentary Review, the NDRB voted to upgrade the Applicant’s characterization of service to GENERAL (Under Honorable Conditions).  The NDRB voted to grant partial relief to the Applicant by upgrading the characterization of service from Other Than Honorable to General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Despite claiming mental health, the Board upgraded the Applicant’s characterization of service based on clemency, after determining that while his misconduct, specifically 446 days of unauthorized absence, was serious, it did not involve violence or endanger others and was not severe enough to warrant a lasting OTH characterization.  However, the SRA disagreed with the NDRB’s decision.  

The stated reasons for the SRA decision were as follows: 

Upon Secretarial review, I [SRA] have determined that the relief granted by the Board was not supported by the evidentiary record, and that reference (g) [USD (P&R) memo dtd 25 Jul 18 (“Wilkie Memo”)] was misapplied.  Accordingly, I am overturning the NDRB’s decision and reinstating the Applicant’s original discharge characterization of Other Than Honorable.

Prior to evaluating the Board’s decision to grant relief under reference (g), and because the applicant asserted he deployed in support of 2 contingency operations and suffered a mental health condition, I [SRA] note that the Board properly afforded the Applicant liberal consideration in accordance with the requirements of references (e) [10 U.S.C. § 1553] and (f) [USD (P&R) memo dtd 25 Aug 17 (“Kurta Memo”)]. Reference (f) provides that liberal consideration should be afforded to veterans seeking discharge relief where their misconduct may have been influenced by mental health conditions (including PTSD and TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. The Kurta Memo outlines four key questions for the NDRB to consider in these circumstances:

1.	Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?
2.	Did that condition exist or experience occur during military service?
3.	Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?
4.	Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?
The NDRB determined, and I concur, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant had a mental health condition or experience that existed during military service and that directly excused or mitigated the misconduct leading to the discharge.  Despite the Applicant’s claims of mental health issues, there was no supporting medical diagnosis, treatment, or credible documentation in the service records to confirm these assertions.  The Board also found the condition did not mitigate the underlying misconduct, and the condition did not outweigh the Applicant’s discharge characterization.  As it pertains to this issue, I agree with and adopt the Board’s rationale contained in the decisional document, including the Medical Board Member’s opinion.

Reference (g) explains that clemency is a form of equitable relief that falls within the broad authority of the NDRB to ensure fundamental fairness.  While the guidance in reference (g) does not mandate relief, it sets forth factors that should be considered in determining whether clemency is appropriate.  Among these factors is whether an applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation, whether the punishment or collateral consequences were unduly harsh, and whether the applicant has shown post-service conduct reflecting acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct.  Reference (g) also provides that evidence supporting clemency may include a veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, and that mental health conditions, such as PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or experiences of sexual assault or harassment, may support equitable relief when such conditions or experiences are shown to have existed during service and contributed to the misconduct.  However, clemency relief under reference (g) is not warranted where there is insufficient evidence to establish a connection between the asserted condition or experience and the misconduct at issue.  In addition, clemency is generally less appropriate in cases involving violent or premeditated misconduct.  Finally, where the applicant does not present persuasive evidence of post-service rehabilitation, remorse, or other factors indicating a change in character, the Board is not compelled to exercise clemency solely based on the existence of a prior condition.

The Board correctly found that the Applicant’s misconduct, which involved 446 days of unauthorized absence and met the definition of desertion under Article 85 of the UCMJ, was both serious and intentional. The Applicant claimed that he left due to a Red Cross message about his sister’s health and because he was denied emergency leave. However, there is no credible evidence to support this claim. The record does not include any documentation showing that a Red Cross message was received, that emergency leave was requested or denied, or that his sister was critically ill. Without such evidence, both the Board and I, during the SRA review, must rely on the presumption of regularity. This means we assume the actions of Navy personnel were proper unless there is strong evidence to prove otherwise. In this case, there is no such evidence in the record to support the Applicant’s claims.

As explained above, the Applicant’s medical records and service history contain no diagnosis, treatment, or complaints related to mental health conditions during active duty, and no competent evidence linking any such condition to his misconduct. The Board appropriately found no mitigating nexus between alleged mental health issues and the misconduct, as required by reference (g).

Reference (g) notes that the relative severity of misconduct may evolve over time and that clemency may be more appropriate in nonviolent cases. While this is not a violent case, desertion for over a year constitutes grave misconduct, undermining unit cohesion, military readiness, and lawful authority. Such a prolonged absence reflects strikes to the core of military service and trust and is one of the most serious nonviolent offenses under the UCMJ. This misconduct alone outweighs the Applicant’s otherwise honorable service, and the time that has passed (10 years) since the misconduct occurred does not lessen it’s impact.

Furthermore, reference (g) emphasizes that in providing clemency relief the Board should consider credible evidence of post-service rehabilitation, including acceptance of responsibility, remorse, character references, and contributions to the community. In this case, the Applicant submitted a personal statement expressing remorse, accepting responsibility for his desertion, and attributing his decision to a perceived conflict between duty and family during a period of emotional distress. He further states that he has matured since the incident, leads others in his civilian profession as a construction superintendent, and has applied the values learned in the Marine Corps in his personal life. Additionally, the Applicant provided several character statements from fellow Marines attesting to his otherwise honorable service and describing the desertion as uncharacteristic of his conduct. While the Applicant’s statement and those of his fellow Marines are relevant and entitled to consideration, they are largely self-reported and lack corroborating documentation. The Applicant did not submit objective evidence of post-service employment, such as pay records or supervisor letters, nor did he provide independent documentation of community service, counseling, or other rehabilitative efforts. Without more persuasive and verifiable evidence of sustained rehabilitation or community contribution since discharge, the record, due to the seriousness of the misconduct, falls short of establishing a compelling basis for clemency.

Next, the Board’s conclusion that the Applicant’s misconduct constituted an “extraordinary lapse in judgment” does not, by itself, justify clemency without compelling mitigating circumstances or clear evidence of rehabilitation. Choosing to desert a military unit and remain absent for over a year, returning only after being apprehended, reflects more than a lapse in judgment. It shows ongoing and intentional misconduct. While the offense was non- violent, the extended duration of the absence and the fact that the Applicant returned only through apprehension weighed heavily in my decision against relief.

The Applicant’s prior deployments, commendations, and awards are commendable, but they do not justify clemency. Reference (g) makes clear that favorable prior service must be weighed against the seriousness of the misconduct, and that character alone does not entitle an applicant to an upgraded discharge.

Pursuant to reference (h) [CORB ltr 5420 dtd 4 Aug 25], the Applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the Board’s decision and to submit written comments for consideration during my review. However, no response or additional information was received.

In sum, the Board’s decision to grant relief on clemency grounds is not supported by the totality of the evidence or by the standards outlined in reference (g). The Applicant submitted a personal statement accepting responsibility and provided character references describing prior honorable service. This information was considered but is not enough to outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct. Desertion is a serious offense. In this case, the Applicant’s claims of a family emergency and mental health concerns are not supported by official records, so the presumption of regularity applies. While acknowledgments of past mistakes and positive character statements are relevant, they do not require relief. The Applicant’s decision to desert his unit for 446 days was a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  Therefore, relief is not warranted, and the Applicant’s original discharge characterization of Other Than Honorable is reinstated.

In summary, the SRA set aside the NDRB’s decision and directed the Applicant’s discharge shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade because he believes he only made one mistake.
Discussion

Date:  20250630		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 from March to May 2011 and March to December 2012 in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.  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:

20130510:    For SNM eligible but not recommended for promotion due to pending legal action. 
20150515:    For SNM eligible but not recommended for promotion due to recent pending legal action. 

:  The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade because he believes he only made one mistake.

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?	No 	
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 symptoms or conditions during active-duty service. There is no convincing evidence from the medical records that any mental health symptoms existed during the Applicant’s military service or that any of the Applicant’s actions were influenced by any mental health condition or symptomatology during the Applicant’s military service.

Based on this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.	

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 accordance with the above, 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.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his claim of mental health; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  The Applicant violated the UCMJ, specifically Article 85 (Deserter) for a total of 446 days of unauthorized absence.  The Applicant was apprehended by local law enforcement who uncovered a national warrant for the Applicant’s arrest as a deserter, subsequently he was turned over to U.S. military control.

Upon returning from his second, successful combat deployment, the Applicant states that he received a Red Cross message for his sister’s health that she was dying.  The Applicant claims that he requested support from his chain of command, and he was denied emergency leave.  The Applicant chose to take matters into his own hands and left his unit for 446 days.  The Applicant informed the Board that his sister was diagnosed with Lupus and had no other health challenges.  The Board presumes the Applicant’s sister is still alive.  

The Applicant was not diagnosed, treated or complained of any mental health symptoms or conditions during active-duty service.  There is no convincing evidence from the medical records that any mental health symptoms existed during the Applicant’s military service or that any of the Applicant’s actions were influenced by any mental health condition or symptomatology during the Applicant’s military service.  Therefore, the Board was unable to establish a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.  In addition, the Applicant provided no evidence to support this claim that he received a Red Cross message, no evidence that his command denied his request to take emergency leave, no evidence that his sister was, in fact, in the hospital for a health condition, no evidence to show his current employment, no evidence that he is a contributing member to society, and no evidence that he does, in fact, have a mental health condition.  Ultimately, the Board inferred that if the Applicant was not apprehended by local law enforcement he would not have returned to the Marine Corps.  If in fact, the Applicant’s sister was ill, it is reasonable to believe, the Applicant would have returned immediately after she was stabilized and not 446 days later under the control of law enforcement.  This, the Board was unable to overlook; consequently, the Board was unable to grant full relief. 

In review of the Applicant’s misconduct the Board identified the nature of his commission, and viewed the Applicant’s misconduct as an extraordinary lapse in judgement, but none that involved the use of force or violence, acts or omissions endangering the security of the Marine Corps, or deliberate acts or omissions that endangered the health and safety of others.  While the record of evidence does reflect a disciplinary issue that required corrective action and punishment, the acts do not merit an enduring UOTH characterization of service.  

The Board found that the assignment of an UOTH characterization was unduly harsh in this case, when also considering the established pattern of above average service, two combat deployments, earning the National Defense and Global War on Terrorism Service Medals, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, a Navy Unit Commendation and a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the Board found it reasonable to believe that, if the Applicant did not commit the violation and become a deserter, he would have continued with honorable service.  However, the Board also recognizes that this does not excuse the Applicant’s behavior, at a minimum, it provides additional context into the totality of the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve, and that the misconduct took place almost 10 years ago.  The Board held 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.  

Therefore, stating in the simplest of terms, and in consideration for all these factors, to include weighing the severity of the misconduct in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the Board determined that the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  Specifically, the Board weighed the nature of the Applicant’s disciplinary infractions against the Applicant’s overall military performance and held that although the Applicant’s service was not flawless, his service was not so discrediting that his service is underserving of an upgrade.

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 the awarded characterization of service shall   GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall   IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL with a corresponding separation code of KFS1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  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.