ex- PFC, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20230924
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:  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY
Reentry Code change to:  RE-1A

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	            	Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20140616	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20170908	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  02  Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  60
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.1 (NFIR) 
Fitness Reports:  

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20151019:	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded:   
	Suspended:  NONE

- 20170711:	Article 112 (Drunk on duty) 
	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)
	Awarded:  RIR RESTR EPD FOP
	Suspended:   

Retention Warning Counseling:  6

- 20150121:	For violating detachment liberty policy. 

- 20150316:	For violation of Article 92.

- 20151019:	For violation of Article 111.

- 20170309:	For violation of Article 92.

 -20170606:	For violation of Article 92.

 -20170711:	For violation of Articles 112 and 112a.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	
 
Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The 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 post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends is discharge was improper and inequitable because he was denied due process rights.
3.	The Applicant contends his mental health condition was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20240103		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

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

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, manufacture or introduction of controlled substance)

:  The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.

The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.  The NDRB considers outstanding post-service conduct to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  The Applicant provided a statement through counsel, evidence of continuous employment, and numerous 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.

:  The Applicant contends is discharge was improper and inequitable because he was denied due process rights.

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 sufficient evidence, to support the contention the command treated him unjustly, or that his discharge was improper or inequitable.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Looking at the Applicant’s misconduct holistically, the Board found it began during MOS school aboard Fort Leonard Wood where he was issued a retention warning counseling (RWC) in January 2015 for deliberately violating liberty policy – failing to sign out on liberty and staying out past curfew.  Two months later, he received his second RWC for carrying his personal cellular phone while conducting training.  Six months after arriving at his first duty station the Applicant received NJP for operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol under the age of 21 and for driving 90 mph in a 45 mph zone.  While he contended those charges were dropped in civil court, this had no bearing on his command’s decision to hold him responsible for his misconduct based on the available evidence.  The Applicant received his third RWC in March 2017 for violating a military protective order by contacting his spouse and his fourth in June 2017 for failing to make a command ordered appointment.  Finally, the Applicant received NJP in July 2017 for being intoxicated while on duty as a gate security guard aboard and for wrongfully violating the service drug policy – tested positive for cocaine at 929 nanograms per milliliter on 26 April 2017.  Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service to maintain proper order and discipline.  Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service.  This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, here, the command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.  

During the onset of initial charges against the Applicant for NJP in 2017, he retained civilian counsel who reached out to the Applicant’s chain of command and requested the statements of witnesses who had alleged his drug use in order to determine whether to accept or refuse NJP.  While the Board is unsure how quickly the Applicant’s command became aware of his positive urinalysis for cocaine after his sample was tested on 26 April 2017, it was added to NJP charges in early May and it appeared charges were then preferred to SPCM after he failed to accept NJP by his deadline.  Email threads appeared to indicate the Applicant and his civilian counsel were sent a packet containing NJP documentation.  The Board found it likely this documentation contained his positive breathalyzer for being drunk on duty and his positive urinalysis results for cocaine use.  Ultimately, the Applicant entered into a disposition agreement on 21 June 2017, pleading guilty at squadron level NJP to violation of UCMJ Articles 112 and 112a on 11 July 2017.  In this agreement, the Applicant also waived his right to an administrative separation (ADSEP) board and he was subsequently notified of ADSEP on 17 July 2017.  While counsel submitted a detailed letter to his commanding officer requesting the Applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service, the separation authority disagreed, ultimately separating him with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge on 8 September 2017 for misconduct – drug abuse.

The Board found the presence of witness statements indicating his drug use immaterial in this case given his positive urinalysis from the Navy Drug Lab.  Moreover, if the Applicant believed his charges were improper, he had the opportunity through civilian counsel to present his case at SPCM, but evidence clearly demonstrated the Applicant waived his rights to trial by court-martial and an administrative separation board.  As a result, the Board concluded the discharge was both proper and equitable.

:  The Applicant contends his mental health condition was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.

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 – ADHD, Adjustment Disorder	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes	
4.	Medical board member comments:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant, a Marine veteran, was discharged in 2017 for violating service drug policy.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant contends (in part) a history of childhood trauma and mental health issues treated during his time in service mitigate his misconduct.  No additional information was provided.

Brief timeline:
16 Jun 2014 – Enlistment
26 Apr 2015 – Arrived for duty, HQ SQDN MCAS Cherry Point
14 Oct 2015 – NJP (Art 111)
03 Nov 2015 – SARP screening (Unspecified Alcohol Related Disorder)
10 Dec 2015 – Completed Prime for Life
08 Feb 2017 – SARP screening (no diagnosis)
01 Mar 2017 – FAP determination (Met criteria for IPV)
03 Apr 2017 – Report of + UDS (cocaine @ 929 ng/mL)
11 Jun 2017 – NJP (Art 112, 112a)
12 May - 16 Jun 2017 – Intensive Outpatient Program (SARP Level 2)
08 Sep 2017 – Discharge

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:
1.	The Applicant was treated for ADHD and Adjustment Disorder in various outpatient mental health visits from Jan – Jun 2017.  The crux of the visits centered on focusing difficulties, treated with different stimulant medications.  I did not find evidence of childhood trauma or significant mood or thought disorders.
2.	The Applicant was the subject of a verified FAP case for IPV (Applicant and spouse), though I was unable to find additional information on this issue.
3.	The Applicant was screened multiple times by SARP between 2015 and 2017, resulting in participation in Prime for Life (2015) and IOP (2017).  No significant mental health notes coincided with these treatment periods.
4.	Based on the records, I do not find evidence that the Applicant’s mental health rendered him unable to make clear, goal-directed decisions concerning his conduct or not understand the ramifications of his actions.

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

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  However, the Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnoses to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct based on the aforementioned opinion of the Board’s Medical Officer.  While the Board did not factor this into deliberations, it is also important to note that the Applicant had likely enlisted fraudulently.  The Applicant had a pre-service history of ADHD for which he was prescribed Strattera, Concerta, and Adderall.  Entrance medical documentation contained in his OMPF contained no such disclosure of this diagnosis and the Board found the applicant deliberately misrepresented his medical condition during the enlistment process, including the omission or concealment of facts, which if known at the time would have reasonably been expected to preclude, postpone, or otherwise affect the Applicant’s eligibility for enlistment or induction.

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. 

The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnoses; the nexus between his drug use/misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the Board determined the Applicant 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.  Relief denied.

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

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE) with a corresponding separation code of JKk1, 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, see Find your nearest VA medical center.