Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20231215
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-1

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	 	             	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20151026	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20201020	Highest Rank/Rate:  Sgt
Length of Service:  05  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  00  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  71
Deployment/Operation: 
Fitness Reports: 

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

Period of CONF:  20200529 - 20200701, 33 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20200313:	Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
	Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel) 
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD   Suspended: FOP RESTR EPD  
MPO ARREST:  1

- 20180613:	Charges:  Possessing CBD oil and kratom.

Retention Warning Counseling:  10

- 20191119:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation. 

- 20191119:	For violation of article 112a, wrongful use, possession of controlled substance. 

- 20191119:	For violation of articles 86 and 92. 
 
          - 20191119:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.

          - 20191209:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.

          - 20200124:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation. 

          - 20200318:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.
 
          - 20200313:    For violation of articles 86 and 113 resulting in NJP.

          - 20200428:	For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.  

          - 20201007:	For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.  

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “20200529-20200701 (33 days) ”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO 1900.16 CH 2), effective 15 February 2019 until present, 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 that the notice of separation proceedings was improper implying that he was treated unfairly by his command. 
2.	The Applicant contends impropriety in that Navy doctors assessment of his mental health was cursory and appears without any review of his 3000-plus page medical record that led to a misdiagnosis of the existence of his mental health condition which led to his misconduct. 
3.	The Applicant contends that the command made an error in equity because the other than honorable (UOTH) characterization of service is too harsh when the totality of the circumstances are evaluated, which caused the Applicant to be improperly stigmatized and harmed by his UOTH discharge, as recognized by various courts. 

Discussion

Date:  20241009		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.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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:

- 20191119:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation. 

- 20191119:	For violation of article 112a, wrongful use, possession of controlled substance. 

- 20191119:	For violation of articles 86 and 92. 
 
          - 20191119:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.

          - 20191209:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.

          - 20200124:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation. 

          - 20200318:    For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.
 
          - 20200313:    For violation of articles 86 and 113 resulting in NJP.

          - 20200428:	For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.  

          - 20201007:	For violation of article 86, unauthorized absence.  

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave, etc.) 
Article 111 (Drunk or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel)

One Military Police Officer Arrest 
- 20180613:	Charges:  Possessing CBD oil and kratom (herbal substance opioid/stimulant-like effects)

:  The Applicant contends that the notice of separation proceedings was improper implying that he was treated unfairly by his command. 

The Applicant also claims that his discharge was unfair, as it occurred just six days after he suffered severe injuries in a car accident on 10 October 2020, followed by the separation proceedings on 16 October 2020. He argues that his injuries, including broken bones, head trauma, lung injury, and conditions like PTSD, MOD, and GAD, made it impossible for him to make informed decisions about his separation. 

Servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes that the circumstances of the offense warrant separation, and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense.  Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The Applicant signed a pretrial agreement on June 15, 2020, which included waiving an Administrative Separation Board and accepting the discharge recommended in the notification letter.  The Applicant did not submit a written rebuttal.  

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.  The NDRB found insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Applicant's command acted unfairly, as he had numerous instances of misconduct, including 10 retention warnings, a nonjudicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and an arrest for possessing substances such as CBD oil and kratom.  The record shows willful misconduct, including possession of marijuana, a confirmed cocaine use via urinalysis, underage drinking and an arrest—all of which were deliberate choices that violated the standards expected of service members.  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 was improperly or unfairly separated.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Relief denied on this issue.

: The Applicant contends impropriety in that Navy doctors assessment of his mental health was cursory and appears without any review of his 3000-plus page medical record that led to a misdiagnosis of the existence of his mental health condition which led to his misconduct.  He also contends that the command made an error in equity because the other than honorable (UOTH) characterization of service is too harsh when the totality of the circumstances are evaluated, which caused the Applicant to be improperly stigmatized and harmed by the UOTH discharge.

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, “mental 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, “liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, relief 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, “premeditated 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.” 

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 OFFICER 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 (GAD, poly-substance abuse disorder in-service, civilian diagnosis PTSD, reported diagnosis autism spectrum disorder in childhood)	
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 combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions: there is evidence of in-service mental health diagnoses and treatment.  There is insufficient evidence that PTSD or any other mental health disorder was a mitigating nexus to the applicant’s misconduct. There is evidence of a TBI that occurred after all of the applicant’s misconduct occurrences and therefore was not a mitigating factor in the misconduct.

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

The Applicant asserts that Navy medical personnel were unable to effectively treat his mental illness, as evidenced by the numerous antidepressant and anxiety medications he was prescribed.  He believes that this lack of effective treatment contributed to his decision to self-medicate.  The Applicant maintains that his discharge was improper due to a misdiagnosis of his mental health condition.  Specifically, he claims that he was diagnosed with PTSD and Anxiety Disorder by an outside behavioral health clinic from August to December 2018.  From February 2019 to October 2020, he attended at least 45 appointments at the Camp Lejeune Naval Medical Center Mental Heath Clinic, where he was diagnosed with General Anxiety Disorder, Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Other Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Other Specified Depressive Episodes, and panic disorder.  Navy medical personnel prescribed him a variety of medications to address these conditions.  Additionally, the Applicant had pre-existing conditions, including high-functioning autism, anxiety, and major depressive disorder.  He also experienced significant personal challenges during his military service, such as the separation from his wife and a diagnosis of HIV.  He believes these factors should serve to excuse or mitigate his misconduct.  Additionally, the Applicant argues that his honorable performance—demonstrated by his Good Conduct Medal and rapid promotion to Sergeant—combined with extensive documentation from licensed medical professionals, both civilian and Navy, diagnosing his mental health conditions, should outweigh the classification of his discharge.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends that the mental health conditions and medications prescribed by the Navy were present during the specific incidents outlined in his counseling documentation.

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.  Though the Applicant may feel that their Mental Health was the underlying cause of their misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated the Applicant was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant’s Mental Health was a sufficient mitigating factor to excuse the Applicant’s conduct or accountability concerning their actions.  After an exhaustive review, the NDRB determined that PTSD and Anxiety Disorder did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.  

However, 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.  A UOTH 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 this case, 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 that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain good order and discipline.  The Applicant argues that self-medication of CBD oil, a dietary supplement, and alcohol is relatively less severe than offenses such as assault, battery, and sexual abuse.  He asserts that his job performance and unexcused absence were directly related to the medications prescribed by the Navy for his mental health issues.  Additionally, he claims that the stigma surrounding mental health within the Marine Corps was a contributing factor.  The violation of Articles 111 and 112a, involving possession of certain illegal substances, constitutes an offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation, which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at worst, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  

Reviewing the record, the Board noted the Applicant’s Command opted for the more lenient administrative discharge rather than pursuing a punitive discharge.   The Board also considered the Applicant’s contention an UOTH administrative discharge carries consequences similar to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). Such discharges are rare, as most discharges from the armed forces are Honorable.  The Applicant believes that any discharge other than honorable stigmatizes the servicemember, harms their reputation, and negatively impacts their ability to secure employment and reintegrate into civilian society.  He argues that such a discharge is punitive, tarnishing the servicemember's character and damaging their economic and social prospects.  The Board noted an UOTH is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine or Sailor, which encompasses misconduct such as, but are not limited to: the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of special positions of trust, disregard of customary senior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions endangering the security of the Marine Corps/Navy, deliberate acts or omissions seriously endangering the health and safety of others.  

Although noting the Applicant had 10 retention warnings, a NJP, and an arrest for possessing CBD oil/kratom, the Board viewed the Applicant’s misconduct as disciplinary infractions that compromise the rank and structure of a military organization, but none that involved the use of force or violence, acts or omissions endangering the security of the Marine Corps/Navy, or deliberate acts or omissions that endangered the health and safety of others.  While the record of evidence does reflect disciplinary issues that required corrective action and punishment, the acts do not merit an enduring UOTH characterization of service.  In this case, considering the totality of the Applicant’s performance and conduct in relationship to his overall capacity to serve, the Board held the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.

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 the awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (DRUGS) with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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