ex- SSgt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20231129
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 2003 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 19841101 - 19950102               	Active:	 19950103 - 20110418  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20110419	Age at Enlistment:  45
Period of Enlistment:  2 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20130831	Highest Rank/Rate:  MGySgt
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  04  Month(s)  12  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  52
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	NMCCM (2) NMCAM (2) MUC (6) NMUC (3) GCM (6) SGCM (3) NDSM (2) GWOTSM MCRR (4) AFRM COC LOA (3) 

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

NJP: NONE SCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

SPCM:  1 

- 20150113:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)  
	Article 121 (Wrongful Appropriation)
	Article 134 (Concealing a Public Record)  
	Awarded: RIR to E-6 fine of $748.00  Suspended:  NONE
	CA: Adjudged and approved. 

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20121105:	Due to misconduct while on recruiting duty.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	9/30/2022
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD22-420
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.  Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ch2), effective 06 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 1005, DISCHARGE FOR EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT OR FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION.

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 his discharge is inequitable as the characterization inaccurately depicts the level of service he afforded the Marine Corps throughout his entire career.
2.	The Applicant contends that the assigned discharge characterization is unduly harsh given the misconduct that was referenced to substantiate his administrative processing.
3.	The Applicant states that the misconduct he committed is mitigated by mental health challenges he experienced that associate with responsibilities he executed in the performance of his duties.   
4.	The Applicant contends that his post-service is deserving of consideration for an upgrade. 

Discussion

Date:  20240424		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 UCMJ:
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)  
Article 121 (Wrongful Appropriation)
Article 134 (Concealing a Public Record)  

:  The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable as the characterization inaccurately depicts the level of service he afforded the Marine Corps throughout his entire career.  

The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable as his assigned discharge inaccurately reflects the decades long honorable service he devoted to the Marine Corps. In review of the Applicant’s petition the NDRB is limited to addressing the period of service under review as previous enlistment periods have already been recognized as Honorable service. The period of service under review in this case begins 20110413 and ends 20130831. All service prior to 20110413 is considered previous periods of Honorable service. Thus, despite the Applicant’s lengthy tenure of service, the NDRB is only permitted to account for the service, inclusive of all accomplishments and misconduct, that occurred beginning when the Applicant reenlisted on 20110413. The issue presented to the NDRB on the part of the Applicant does not present decision criteria that the Board is permitted to use. As such, this issue does not serve as basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

Issue 2: The Applicant contends that the assigned discharge characterization is unduly harsh given the misconduct that was referenced to substantiate his administrative processing. 

The Applicant contends that the assigned discharge characterization is unduly harsh given the misconduct that was referenced to substantiate his administrative processing. Stating that the misconduct that was committed was minor in nature, the Applicant suggests that the enduring nature of his discharge characterization presents negative consequences and an inaccurate depiction of his character. During the period of service under review, the Applicant was subject to a conviction at a Special Court Martial (SPCM) for violating Articles 92, 107 and 134 of the UCMJ. Specifications of the misconduct include the Applicant disobeying an order when he was found to have misused and misappropriated government resources in manner contradictory to regulations; a violation of Article 121 for unauthorized and wrongful use of a government EZ Pass Toll Responder; and violation of Article 134 for concealing a public record that he was obligated to report to leadership.  The record of trial substantiates that the Applicant’s proceedings were in accordance with all regulations and that the findings were equitable and consistent with the tenets of the UCMJ. 

While the Applicant states that the substantiated misconduct was minor in nature, the NDRB is limited to the evidence within the record and the testimony of the Applicant. The service record book clearly substantiates that the behavior involved with the Applicant’s separation was formally investigated; appropriately evaluated for the referral of charges given the specifications of the charges; and upheld processing at a SPCM and legal review per the UCMJ. Although the Applicant provided the NDRB his opinion of the magnitude of the charges, the record documents convictions for three separate charges at a court-martial. The forum of a SPCM itself reflects the serious nature of the misconduct, as do the findings and outcome that results in a reduction in grade from E-9 to E-6. The NDRB was challenged to accept and view the misconduct as minor in nature and isolated when the totality of his actions occurred over an extended period of time and included pre-meditated behavior that fell far short of the standards of conduct demanded of a Marine, particularly of a member of Applicant’s grade. The decisions and actions of the Applicant’s leadership were deliberate and accounted for all facts and circumstances. Given the level of rigor in the investigation and processing by the Applicant’s command; and that the Applicant was afforded due process, the NDRB did not find the Applicant’s misconduct to be minor and isolated. A SPCM conviction within the period of service under review does reflect a significant negative aspect that outweighs the positive aspects of service due to the level of disciplinary disposition it represents. 

The NDRB 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 Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any documented evidence for the NDRB’s consideration, to support the contention the Applicant deserves an upgrade in characterization.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied on this issue.

Issue 3:  The Applicant states that the misconduct he committed is mitigated by mental health challenges he experienced that associate with responsibilities he executed in the performance of his duties.   

The Applicant states that the misconduct he committed is mitigated by mental health challenges he experienced from responsibilities he executed in the capacity of his billets. Citing challenges with his emotional stability created by the deaths of Marines he had recruited and mentored, the Applicant stated his judgment and decision making was negatively impacted. Within his application and during testimony the Applicant specifically referenced the use of alcohol as a means of self-medicating to cope with the stress and anxiety he experienced. Although some of the misconduct he was found to have committed during the period of service under review associates with alcohol related misconduct from an earlier period of service, the behaviors prosecuted at the SPCM do not correlate to the trauma the Applicant seeks the Board to reference. In addition, post-service records that document a diagnosis for depressive disorder, do not establish a medical nexus to the behavior of the Applicant when it comes to his lack of judgment and integrity. In order to apply mitigation, the NDRB must establish a medical nexus and in this case the Board did not find any association with the misconduct committed and the post-service mental health diagnoses.     

The Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; his entire military performance and conduct; his mental health diagnosis; the nexus between his misconduct and his mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service was not appropriate given the lack of medical nexus to the specific acts of misconduct. Relief denied.  

Issue 4:  The Applicant contends that his post-service is deserving of consideration for an upgrade.  

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 – mood disorder (VA)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes (per VA connection)	
	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, testimony, and all applicant-provided materials.

The Applicant retired from the Marine Corps in 2013 (statutory requirement) after being reduced in rank at a special court marital for misconduct.  In rebutting his discharge, the Applicant made no specific contentions connected mental health to his misconduct but notes mental health difficulties associated with his job.  Since discharge, the VA has awarded the Applicant 100% disability (50% for mood disorder).

Brief timeline:
(Multiple prior periods of service beginning in 1984)
19 Apr 2011 – Last reenlistment
14 Sep 2007 – civilian conviction (DUI)
18 Nov 2009 – traffic violation & discovery of suspended license
~ Aug 2012 – Investigation into EZ-Pass misuse
24 May 2013 – SPCM (Art 92 x 4, 121, 134)
31 Aug 2013 - Retirement

1.	The Applicant, a Marine SSGT with no prior combat experience, was statutorily retired in 2013 based on a court martial conviction for defrauding the government by inappropriately using a commercial toll pass.  
2.	I did not find evidence of ongoing mental health evaluations in the active-duty treatment record.   VA mental health records illustrate feelings of depression surrounding the loss of recruits (combat and non-combat deaths) during his recruiting career.  No clear correlation between any increased alcohol use or the impact of any mental health deterioration while on active duty was outlined.
3.	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.  As there was no additional information presented in this Application, I do not find merit in seeking to override the informed opinions of the Marine senior leadership.
4.	In reviewing the case under Kurta and Wilke considerations, I note the following:
a.	"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
•	Mental health difficulties from the loss of recruits
Vs.
•	Holding a position of trust and confidence at the time of misconduct
•	Premeditated nature of the misconduct and length of time over which the misconduct was committed
•	Lack of a medical nexus supporting an inability of the Applicant to make clear, goal-direct decisions and understand the ramifications of his actions

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In accordance with the above, the Board found the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  In making its determination, the Board considered the Applicant’s contention that his post-service is deserving of 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 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.  The Board determined that the characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations.  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  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of RNC1, and the reentry code shall  RE-2B.  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.