ex- LCpl, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20240531
Characterization of Service Received:     
Narrative Reason for Discharge:     MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:     MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3 [PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:			Active:	

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20130513	Age at Enlistment:  18
Period of Enlistment:  5 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20170420	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  03 Year(s) 11 Month(s) 08 Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  53
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.7 (NFIR)   Behavior/Conduct: 3.7 (NFIR)   
Fitness Reports: 

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  MUC NDSM GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR COC LOA  

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20150609:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:   

Retention Warning Counseling:  6

- 20150611:	For allowing off duty occupation to hinder performance and operate as a Marine. 

- 20151214:	For violation of article 134, failing to pay debt.

- 20160609:	For violation of article 92, failure to obey order or regulation. 

- 20160901:	For substance abuse treatment failure and the following violation of the USMC: Article 92 –Failure to Obey Orders or Regulations; Article 112a – Wrongful use, possession, etc.  of a controlled substances.

- 20160901:	For Pattern of Misconduct, violation of article 92 for multiple driving violations from approximately June to August 2016, which include 6 speeding tickets, 4 driving while suspended, four license withdrawals, 2 driving without insurance, registration, or license and 2 suspensions. 
 
- 20160608:	For Pattern of Misconduct, and being processed for Administrative Separation for Pattern of Misconduct.

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 26 November 2013 until 14 February 2019. 

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 claims basic allowance for housing (BAH) was improperly denied.
2.	The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade from under other than honorable conditions based on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sexual harassment, other mental health (Asperger’s Disorder), and general harassment for being homosexual.
3.	The Applicant claims his urinalysis was improperly obtained.
Discussion

Date:  20240531		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:

	For allowing his off-duty employment to affect his performance a Marine.
	Violating Article 134, failing to pay debt.
	Violating Article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation.
	Substance abuse treatment failure, violating Article 92, and violating Article 112a.

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)

:  The Applicant claims basic allowance for housing (BAH) was improperly denied.

The NDRB does not have the authority to review/grant claims concerning pay or allowance for housing (BAH).  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can grant this type of relief.  Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.  As such, this issue does not serve as a basis upon which the NDRB can grant relief.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum; specifically, the Applicant can petition the BCNR to review their case by document review using the required application (DD Form 149).  However, the NDRB noted the Applicant’s contention was reviewed by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) in October 2020, and relief was granted on the BAH claim.

: The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade from under other than honorable conditions 

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 partially mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed 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 	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes 	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Cannot be ruled out (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 Navy Marine Corps separated the Applicant  
 
Brief timeline: 
 
HS à GED 

Severe Alcohol Addiction 2016 – IOP Pt Loma 
Serial Consecutive No-shows for Mental Health appointments 
Multiple facets of friction with Command 

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions:  The Applicant has a strong and concerning history for alcoholism, as well as the diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Positive screening for PTSD and TBI.  Additionally, the Applicant Counsel’s allegations of sexual harassment toward the Applicant, occurred as the Command was investigating for violations of the UCMJ.  The Applicant may not have been a good fit for his Command, and with liberal consideration it is reasonable to consider that complex social, financial, and relational stressors of the Applicant experienced through what was likely an incredibly stressful period, leading to separation from USMC, may also have likely contributed to Adjustment D/O to service in the USMC.    
 
Based on this information, I do find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health. 

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 (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 should be characterized as being honest and faithful but that significant negative aspects of the Applicant’s conduct and performance outweighed the positive aspects of his service.  In making its determination, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s service record, medical record, and submitted material.  The Applicant makes several claims surrounding his under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant claims the urine sample leading to his Article 112a violation for drug use was improperly obtained.  The Applicant’s counsel referred the Board to paragraph 1004(e)(2) of Marine Corps Order 1900.16, the Separation and Retirement Manual.  The reference directs that a Marine’s voluntary submission to a DoD treatment and rehabilitation program may not be used against the Marine on the issue of characterization of service.  It further restricts separation authorities to only approving honorable or general (under honorable conditions) characterizations as warranted by the respondent’s service record unless retention is recommended.  The Board would like to focus on the key phrase, “…as warranted by the respondent’s service record.”    If the Applicant’s drug use, confirmed by voluntary submission to a DoD treatment program, were the only basis for separation, the Board would determine that a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted.  However, the Applicant was separated for a pattern of misconduct and not a singular 112a offense that was corroborated by the Applicant’s self-referral and positive “treatment program” urinalysis.

A review of the record shows the Applicant has numerous page 11 service record entries for UCMJ offenses that form a pattern of misconduct over a period of 14 months.  On 31 May 2015, the Applicant violated Article 92 by failing to report to his assigned place of duty as the barracks non-commissioned officer.  The Applicant received non-judicial punishment for this offense.  

On or about 3 November 2015, the Applicant violated Article 134 for dishonorably failing to pay rent in the amount of $870.3.  The Applicant blamed his spouse for this commission, but the Applicant’s name was on the lease and at a minimum he bore the responsibility to ensure his portion of the lease contract was fulfilled.  

On 21 June 2016, the Applicant completed a four-week intensive outpatient (IOP) substance abuse treatment program.  This program began on 11 May 2016, and requires random breathalyzer and random urinalysis tests.  On 14 July 2016, the Applicant’s urine drug screening results from the IOP substance abuse program confirmed he was still using drugs during the program and therefore was also now a treatment program failure in addition to being a self-referred drug user.  The Applicant’s test result indicated 42 ng/ml which is well above the 10ng/ml allowed for residual levels of marijuana and successful completion of the program.  

At approximately 0300, on 22 June 2016, the Applicant violated Article 92 for speeding and for driving without proof of registration.  Proof of registration is one of the three basic prerequisites for driving a car on a military base along with a valid driver’s license and proof of insurance.  This violation resulted in a suspension of base driving privileges for one month or longer when proof of proper registration is not provided to the base magistrate.  The Applicant provided the base magistrate proof of registration on 3 August 2016; however, before that occurred the Applicant was again stopped by PMO at the main gate of Camp Pendleton on 30 July 2016 for driving on base while suspended, four days prior to rendering his valid registration.  This second violation carried a mandatory one-year suspension of base driving privileges.  On 15 August 2016, the Applicant was yet again pulled over at the San Luis Rey gate for driving on base while suspended.  

During the 14-month period, the Applicant violated the UCMJ on five separate occasions and on a sixth occasion he was a substance abuse treatment program failure.  The Board considered this a significant pattern of misconduct that supported the Command’s assignment an UOTH discharge.  The Applicant’s command made note of 18 other civilian driving offenses, for which the Applicant is responsible to report to his military command, but since there is no corroborating NCIS – Civilian Arrest Report in the Applicant’s service record, the Board excluded this information from its determination.  The Marine Corps did not violate its own policy pursuant to paragraph 1004(e)(2) of Marine Corps Order 1900.16.  The Applicant was given opportunities to correct himself and chose instead to violate rules and regulations on multiple occasions, resulting in separation for a pattern of misconduct.

However, because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  The Applicant claimed that PTSD, sexual harassment, Asperger’s Disorder, and general harassment for being homosexual were the underlying cause of his behavior. The Board’s medical member conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s in-service and VA medical record.  The Applicant was diagnosed with severe alcohol addiction in-service and afforded the opportunity for an intensive treatment program.  The Applicant also suffered from adjustment disorder and had a positive screening for PTSD and TBI.  The in-service medical record did not indicate a diagnosis for Asperger’s Disorder.  The Board determined that liberal consideration could be applied in this case.  However, the Board also noted the Applicant’s willful and premeditated misconduct which in accordance with Kurta is not generally excused/explained by mental health conditions.  More specifically, the Applicant was a repeat “no-show” for his scheduled mental health appointments.  He was also a substance abuse treatment failure and the perpetrator of numerous UCMJ violations across a 14-month period.  Finally, the Applicant’s multiple traffic violations show his contempt for following even the most basic rule of law/ordinance.  

In summary, weighing (using the scales of liberal consideration) the Applicant’s overall performance and conduct against the standards for characterization of service, the Board held that the Applicant’s mental health issues partially mitigated the willfulness/failure to comply with military discipline.  However, the Board also found that the Applicant’s mental health condition did not rise to such an incapacitating level as to exonerate him of his willful and persistent misconduct and that he was responsible for a significant portion of his behavior.    

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  PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of GKA1, 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.

Record of Vote

Board Members	Characterization	Narrative Reason	Separation Code	Reentry Code	
					
M. R. PATRIDGE, LTCOL, USMC					
Presiding Officer	GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)				

	GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)				

Recorder	GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)				

					

Recorder’s Signature:  _____________________________________________

 Presiding Officer’s Signature:  _______________________________________

Director’s Review:  _______________________________________________

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.