, ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20231109
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20031201	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20070323	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  53
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.9 (NFIR)  
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  2

- 20060622:	Article 113 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)  
	Awarded: FOP     Suspended:  NONE

- 20070323:	Article 121b (False pretenses to obtain services)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded: RESTR EPD FOP   Suspended:  

SCM:  1

- 20060418:     Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)x2
	 Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)x4
	Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
	Sentence: RIR CONF 30 days (20181201-20181222) FOP
	CA: 

Retention Warning Counseling:  3

- 20060120:	For violation of Article 91.

- 20060717:	For wrongful use of codeine.

- 20060717:	For violation of Article 111.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	20100331
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD09-01601
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until 5 June 2007. 

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 in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.  
2.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20240227		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 violation of Article 91.
For wrongful use of codeine.
           For violation of Article 111.

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 113 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)
Article 121b (False pretenses to obtain services)
Article 134 (General article)

  for  of the UCMJ:  
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)
Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)

:  The Applicant contends that his mental health condition mitigates his misconduct in an otherwise honorable career.

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?	USMC:   Yes, “OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM” (DSM-5 Code 62.89), 
(Alcohol and/or Drug Use Disorder remain possibilities) despite the fact the submitted NDRB Application includes a checkmark on “PTSD” under Item 19 of DD FORM293, but without supportive clinical documentation.
  	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Only OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM is, clinically, documented.	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No more than minimally mitigating as noted in Applicant’s statement admitting and deeply regretting his behavior.	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Uncertain; unable to locate discharge physical examination. 	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED INCLUDE:
AHLTA:  Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application
 
HISTORY INCLUDES:

  PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:

Date of Birth:  02 Mar 1985

Education Level:   12

MEPS:  18 Mar 2003—high school student
     AFQT:   53
     MARIJUANA USE ACKNOWLEDGED

  01 Dec 2003—ENLISTMENT: @ Age 18

11 Jan 2006—AHLTA Note: 
“20 y/o M S/P MVA last PM hit car in front of him at 20 MPH and was
simultaneously rear ended, did not feel need to go to ER last PM, now with
discomfort and spasm bilat trap[ezius muscle] insertion sites, no numbness, tingling or paresthesias, no deformity, no LOC [Loss of Consciousness]
[Radiographic or physical exam] FINDINGS […were] negative.”

03 Mar 2006 Site/Specimen: SERUM Ethanol Medical 72 mg/dL

19 Apr 2006—“REQUEST FOR DENIAL/REVOCATION FOR CAUSE OF SECURITY CLEARANCE ICO LANCE CORPORAL________...

“permanently decertified from the Personnel Reliability Program due to having received summary court martial for violating articles 92, 112a, and 121 of the UCMJ, (derelict in the performance of duties in that he willfully failed to report that he had taken unauthorized medication, wrongfully having unregistered weapons in his privately owned vehicle, wrongful use of codeine, wrongfully distributing codeine, wrongfully importing codeine, wrongfully introduce codeine onto a vessel, aircraft, vehicle or installation used by the armed forces or under control of the armed forces, and wrongfully appropriation six 5.56 government issued rounds and one M4 stock rear sight) and showing a pattern of misconduct and unreliable behavior…”

02 Aug 2006  Alcohol Rehab:  Observation For Suspected Condition

02 Aug 2006—Alcohol Rehab:  OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM

03 Aug 2006—Psychology:  NO PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS OR CONDITION ON AXIS I

14 Feb 2007—RECOMMENDATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE OF PRIVATE…

“3. On 20 January 2006, [the Applicant]…Private _______ was subject to a 6105 counseling for disobeying a non-commissioned officer. He was then subject to a summary courtmartial on 18 April 2006 for violating articles 92x 2, 112(a)x 4, and 121 of the UCMJ. Then on 11 June 2006 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol which resulted in a non-judicial punishment on 22 June 2006. Due to Private ______'s charges of 112(a) he was accordingly processed for administrative separation. As per enclosure (9), Private _____ elected to be seen at an administrative separation board in which the members of the board found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support the allegations in his notification of separation for drug abuse.”

21 Feb 2007—Personal appeal included, “…I have changed my ways as a "wild child" and have buckled down…2nd Lt. ., , WWII [a  quoted survivor of that battle] says it best about how I feel about the Marine Corps when he said. "My only answer as to why the Marines get the toughest jobs is because the average Leatherneck is a much better fighter. He has far more guts, courage, and better officers... These boys out here have pride in the Marine Corps. and will fight to the end no matter what the cost."

26 Feb 2007—Subase Occupational Health – BHEC Madigan AMC-Fort Lewis
AutoCites…Problems
• CLOSED FRACTURE 4TH FINGER
PROXIMAL PHALANX LEFT HAND
• OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM
• NO PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS OR
CONDITION ON AXIS I
• feared medical condition not demonstrated…
• Patient Education - Alcohol
• CLOSED FRACTURE DISTAL PHALANX 5TH FINGER RIGHT
• OPEN WOUND OF THE HEAD – SCALP…

23 <ar 2007—DISCHARGE:   UOTH/MISCONDUCT
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  03  Month(s)  23  Day(s)
Performance/Proficiency: 4.2 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.9 (NFIR)  
 
POST SEPARATION:

2013:  Married; wife, a High School Math teacher.

02 May 2013—DD FORM 293 NDRB APPLICATION Included:

  COMMENT:  
Against a formative background of a dysfunctional parental marriage ending in divorce, occurrences of sexual embarrassment which brought up painful recollections for the Applicant, and the influence of several previous generation WWII vintage relatives that he entered into marriage and enlisted in the USMC at about age 18.  After an initial period of achievement, he  was assigned to a command allegedly dominated by an intimidating atmosphere of hazing and bullying, to which he was, possibly, especially vulnerable creating adjustment difficulties in reaction to which he reported suffering agitation, initial insomnia, and wariness he later came to feel represented “PTSD.”  Unfortunately, he reports having felt too intimidated to risk feared retribution if he were to have complained.  This was despite being aware of at least one other peer who had found a way to cope with the situation without entirely giving in.  Hence, he never sought formal help, instead taking refuge in alcohol consumption.  Later allegedly hasty, “accidental” ingestion of an amphetamine/Strattera prescribed for his daughter but stored next to his own medication in his sister’s medicine cabinet that resulted in his ultimate discharge and left him with a profound feeling of failure.  Post discharge, the Applicant has, reportedly, managed to obtain limited therapy including psychopharmacologic intervention. Unfortunately, other than an isolated reference to a formal diagnosis of “OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM,” no record of formal psychiatric evaluation or treatment was submitted at his NDRB PAH; but the Applicant did indicate he had both abstained from alcohol for the past few years and taken prescribed antidepressant and ADHD treatment medication along with maintaining involvement with Alcoholics Anonymous, having recently achieved the “6th Step” in his recovery. Despite the isolated reference to “PTSD” with a checkmark in Item 19 of DD FORM 293, and isolated references to psychological consultation in conjunction with alcohol intake and an isolated reference to “OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM,” the relatively limited submitted Service Treatment Records, there is no indication to either PTSD or any non-substance-drug abuse-related mental health diagnoses (though alcohol and/or drug use disorder remains a possibility).  Nor do any civilian mental health (including VA) evaluations appear to have been submitted.  Despite the Applicant’s sincere appearing testimony, the absence of sufficiently supportive clinical documentation provides insufficient evidence for little more than a hint to substantiate more than a mild, non-exculpatory nexus between the misconduct of record which led to the Applicant’s OTH/ MISCONDUCT discharge and any mental health condition.	

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. In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included two nonjudicial punishments for violations of Articles 113, 121, and 134, and a Summary Court-Martial for violation of Articles 92, 112a, and 121 of the UCMJ; this was a willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract honorably.  However, the Applicant contends his PTSD was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  

The Applicant states his character is demonstrated 3 years, 3 months, and 23 days of service.  The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The Applicant was the subject of two nonjudicial punishments and one Summary Court-Martial while in service. The Applicant was the subject of his first nonjudicial punishment due to arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol while on base. The Applicant’s second nonjudicial punishment was due to the Applicant taking a camera that was not his valued at $500. The Applicant’s third instance of significant misconduct was a Summary Court-Martial due to his use of codeine.  In this instance the Applicant was charged with the illegal use as well as distributing the codeine to others on base. In this instance, the Applicant contends that he bought Tylenol with Codeine in a pharmacy while in Canada not knowing that it was illegal in the States. The Applicant claims that he gave the Tylenol to others not knowing that they are considered a controlled substance.

The Applicant was taken to an administrative separation board for his charges of illegal drug use. The administrative separation board ultimately determined that the Applicant should be retained due to the circumstances surrounding his drug use. The Summary Court-Martial not withstanding, the Applicant was the subject of two nonjudicial punishments, for driving under the influence and larceny, and a retention warning counseling for violation of Article 91 in his last year of service. These actions are more then sufficient to separate the Applicant for a Pattern of Misconduct. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.

Though the Applicant may feel that PTSD was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the PTSD was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning his actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. Driving under the influence of alcohol, stealing another Marines property, and his codeine use were all conscious decisions to violate the tenants of honorable and faithful service.

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 - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of hka1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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