ex- Capt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20230926
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge:   SECNAVINST 1920.6D 

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE		Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Commissioning:  20080216	Age:  
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20190801	Highest Rank:  Capt
Length of Service:   Year(s)     Month(s)   02 Day(s)
Education Level:  	AFQT:  NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (3) Pistol  (2) NUC NDSM ACM (w/1 Star) GWOTSM SSDR NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan  

Periods of UA:  NONE
Period of CONF:  20160824 - 20161219, 117 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

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

GCM:  1

- 20161218:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation)  (2 Specifications)
	Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer) 
	Sentence: Dismissal and confinement for 120 days. Pretrial confinement in the amount of 117 days (20160824-20161219) was credited towards the sentence of confinement.
	CA: The sentence as adjudged is approved, and except for the dismissal, is ordered executed.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

	     “SECNAVINST 1920.6D”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6D (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 24 July 2019 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 11 May 2018.

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 that the Board of Inquiry, and the subsequent endorsements of its decision, failed to properly consider the evidence of the Applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and to properly apply the elements of the Kurta Memo, and that this failure constituted prejudicial error.
2.	The Applicant contends that he already received punishment for his misconduct and that his discharge was inequitable as he had proven himself to be an exemplary Marine.
Discussion

Date:  20240118		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 July 2013 to February 2014 in support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and NEW DAWN.  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:

 General Court-Martial (GCM) for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer)

:  The Applicant contends that the Board of Inquiry, and the subsequent endorsements of its decision, failed to properly consider the evidence of the Applicant’s PTSD and to properly apply the elements of the Kurta Memo, and that this failure constituted prejudicial error.  The Applicant contends that he already received punishment for his misconduct and that his discharge was inequitable as he had proven himself to be an exemplary Marine.

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?	Yes – Adjustment Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression NOS, Alcohol Use Disorder (military);
PTSD (civilian/VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Board Decision (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:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Marine Corps separated the Applicant in 2019 based on multiple findings of misconduct at a board of inquiry.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends the BOI failed to consider service-connected PTSD (as diagnosed by a civilian mental health practitioner) in the final characterization of his service.  Additional medical documentation supporting a VA PTSD assessment was provided.

Brief timeline:
16 Feb 2008 – Commissioning
01 Jan 2009 – DUI (BAC 0.204)
17 Jul 2013 – 09 Feb 2014 – Afghanistan Deployment (MALS 11)
08 Jan 2014 – PDHA performed (no significantly positive responses)
~ Aug 2015 – 1st LIMDU (ortho) 
22 Jul 2016 – 2nd LIMDU (Ortho)
21 Aug 2016 – DUI, on-base arrest (BAC 0.17)
24 Aug – 18 Dec 2016 – Pretrial confinement
19 Dec 2016 – GCM (Art 92 x 2, 134)
17 Jan 2017 – Refusal of SARP services
03 May 2018 – BOI (Art 92, 111, 133, 134 – all substantiated)
10 Aug 2018 – SARP Screening 
26 Sep 2018 – Military mental health evaluation 
01 Aug 2019 - Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	The Applicant deployed to Afghanistan for seven months in 2013 – 2014.  A PDHA performed while in theater showed no significant mental health impairment.  In addition to the PDHA, no record of PTSD was found in the active-duty mental health records, though separately diagnosed by a civilian psychiatrist (in-service) and the VA (post-service).  Evidence supporting the civilian diagnosis of PTSD was presented at the Applicant’s BOI.     
2.	The misconduct in the case includes a previously undisclosed DUI arrest in 2009 and a protracted period of an adulterous relationship (highly premeditated), punctuated by a second DUI arrest, child endangerment charges, and transporting two unregistered firearms.  
3.	In reviewing the case under Kurta and Wilke considerations, I note the following:
a.	“Premeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI…” (Kurta)
b.	"Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct associated with mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI... and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances." (Kurta).  Mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
•	Length of time in and quality of service
•	Prior combat deployment
•	Civilian diagnosis of PTSD
VS
•	Holding a position of trust and confidence at the time of misconduct
•	Timeframe and egregious nature of the misconduct
•	Lack of a medical nexus supporting an inability of the Applicant to make clear, goal-direct decisions and understand the ramifications of his actions
4.	Wilke Criteria for determining equity, injustice, or clemency grounds contributing to this case including:
a.	Applicant’s candor and acceptance of responsibility
b.	Character references & letters of recommendation
5.	Overall, in reviewing the higher-level recommendations and final discharge authority, I find the chain of command had adequate information on which to evaluate the Applicant’s mental health in conjunction with his misconduct.  The Applicant engaged in repeated acts of significant misconduct not mitigated by his mental health.  Therefore, I do not find merit in seeking to override the informed opinions of senior Marine generals and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
6.	Lastly, the Applicant was found unfit by a PEB (orthopedic issues) and rated at 20% for severance pay purposes prior to his discharge.  However, as the discharge wasn’t completed prior to his misconduct, dual processing applied.  In reviewing the case under the 2016 SECNAV Policy Memorandum guidelines, I note a multiple General Officers acknowledged the PEB findings but elected to proceed with administrative separation for misconduct.  These actions conform to secretarial guidance.	

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. 

Further, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of UCMJ Articles 92 and 133 are such offenses that can result in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  The Applicant was arraigned and tried at a General Court-Martial for violations of Articles 92, 107, 111, 133, and 134.  He pled guilty to violating Articles 92 and 133.  The Applicant was either found not guilty of remaining charges, or the charges were withdrawn.  The Applicant appealed and the sentence was affirmed except for the Applicant’s dismissal.  The Applicant was then required to show cause for retention before a Board of Inquiry (BOI).  The BOI was convened and found that the allegations were substantiated and recommended that the Applicant be separated with a characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  In this case, the Applicant contends he suffers from mental health problems, was diagnosed with PTSD, and that the BOI failed to properly consider the evidence of his PTSD and to properly apply the elements of the Kurta Memo.  However, the record indicates that the BOI did consider his PTSD diagnosis, which was entered as a defense exhibit and considered by the BOI.  In fact, as the Mental Health Unit at MCRD San Diego had not yet provided the psychiatric assessment that there was no evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD, the BOI would have been prejudiced in the Applicant’s favor, yet still found the PTSD had no impact on the merits of his defense.  The NDRB likewise found insufficient evidence in the medical record that his Mental Health Diagnosis stemming from PTSD would substantiate a connection between the Applicant’s serious misconduct and challenges incurred from a mental health condition.

Additionally, 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 engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The NDRB did consider the Applicant’s eleven years of exemplary service outside of the misconduct, to include being awarded a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the NATO-ISAF Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one service star.  The Applicant provided a personal statement and three character references.  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

In this case, the totality of the Applicant’s misconduct reflected a gross lack of judgement and was in contrast to the Marine Corps’ core values.  The NDRB was incapable of identifying a sufficient level of mitigation for his actions and decisions that would be supported by his reported condition.  Though the Applicant may feel that mental health issues and PTSD were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that his mental health did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct, nor was it inequitable in light of his previous service or post-service conduct.  Relief denied.

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

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.