Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20231018
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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:  20140304	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20170922	Highest Rank/Rate:  MM3
Length of Service:  03  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  19  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  63
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.6 (3)   Behavior/Conduct:  3.3 (3)   OTA:  3.56 
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  Pistol  NAVY "E" GCM NDSM GWOTSM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:    Retention Warning Counseling:  3

NJP:  1

- 20080817:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Article 107 (False official statements) 
	Awarded:  FOP RIR
	Suspended:  FOP

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	   “MILPERSMAN 1910-142”
	   “MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)”

The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel Command 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:	

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  			Character:    

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560D), Change 43, effective 31 May 2013 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 of 29 September 2020 (Standards for the execution of the Naval Discharge Review Board).

C.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 and 107.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
2.	The Applicant contends her NJP and administrative separation (ADSEP) were improper.
3.	The Applicant contends the totality of her in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
4.	The Applicant contends her mental health condition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and military sexual trauma (MST) were mitigating factors in her misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20240223		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 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.  Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
Article 107 (False official statements)

:  The Applicant contends her post-service conduct warrants 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; evidence of financial stability (credit score), higher-level education, and continuous employment; and 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.  In this case, the Board found merit in the Applicant’s post-service performance and conduct, but found it was insufficient as a sole basis in which to grant relief.  

:  The Applicant contends her NJP and ADSEP were improper.

The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is insufficient evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated her unjustly or that her NJP and ADSEP were improper.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  

According to documentation submitted by the Applicant, she was taken to a disciplinary review board, executive officers inquiry, and ultimately received NJP where she pled guilty to engaging in an unduly familiar relationship with a Navy chief petty officer (CPO (E7)) and for deceitfulness about their relationship when questioned in an official capacity.  Given her misconduct, she was notified of ADSEP proceedings on 8 August 2017 and elected her right to qualified counsel and a statement.  While the Applicant contends she was unable to afford civilian representation, the Applicant had the ability to retain free military counsel as outlined in NAVPERS 1910/31 and, despite electing her right to counsel, failed to do so.  Given she was recommended for a General characterization and had less than six years of service, she was not eligible for an ADSEP board.  As a result, the Board concluded the discharge was proper and equitable.

:  The Applicant contends the totality of her in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.

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

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 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.  The Applicant was administratively separated; not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation.  The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason for separation.  Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition.  The Board thoroughly reviewed the Applicant’s service records and DD Form 293 for the aforementioned considerations and, based on the Applicant’s record of service, the Board determined the Applicant’s in-service conduct did not mitigate her engagement in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The awarded characterization of service was warranted.

4:  The Applicant contends her mental health condition, PTSD, and MST were mitigating factors in her misconduct.

Because the Applicant claimed mental health was a factor in their discharge, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s case in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, and pursuant to the Kurta Memo and other applicable regulations and guidance, including the Wilkie Memo.  Under the Kurta Memo, “[m]ental health conditions, including PTSD; sexual assault; and sexual harassment inherently affect one’s behaviors and choices causing veterans to think and behave differently than might otherwise be expected.”  Although, “[l]iberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, [r]elief may be appropriate … for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions … and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.”  Additionally, “substance seeking behavior and efforts to self-medicate symptoms of a mental health condition may warrant consideration.”  However, “[p]remeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

The review of discharges pursuant to the Kurta Memo and its other applicable regulations/guidance generally involves four questions: a) Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) Did that condition exist/experience occur during military service; c) Does that condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge; and d) Does that condition or experience outweigh the discharge?  

In this case, the Board found that: a) the Applicant did have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience did not mitigate the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience did not outweigh the Applicant’s assigned Discharge Characterization.

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION
1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Alcohol dependence, PTSD, major depression	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Unknown	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	Served 4 March 2014 to 22 September 2017.  General discharge commission of serious offense.  Claims PTSD, other mental health, sexual assault/harassment in service are related.  Article 92 fraternization; 107 false official statement.  Claimed sexually assaulted twice in service.  NJP for inappropriate relationship with CPO then covering it up with false official statement.  Medical officer opinion is that there are no grounds for an upgrade.  No nexus between mental health and misconduct demonstrated - premeditated misconduct not mitigated in this case.	

The Applicant contends she was sexually assaulted twice in-service – once by a MM2 in March 2015 and another by a civilian post her 2015 assault, which led to destructive behavior and poor decision-making, primarily a relationship and pregnancy with a CPO and false official statements surrounding their relationship during an official inquiry.

The Board was challenged to grant liberal consideration based on all of the documentation available for review in this case.  With respect to the first sexual assault, the Applicant, an E3 at the time, was involved in a consensual sexual relationship with her supervisor (MM2) for approximately one month in late February to mid-March 2015.  According to her statement to NCIS, in late March 2015 she spent a night out with the aforementioned MM2 and two of his friends, and ended up back at the apartment of one of the males.  There, she engaged in consensual sex on a sink in a dark bathroom with one of the males (James).  While having sex with James, the MM2 entered the bathroom, used the toilet, and allegedly raped her in the bathroom in the presence of James without him knowing.  Once the Applicant confirmed it was the MM2 who had penetrated her, she told him to leave and was comforted by James who acknowledged he was unware she was being assaulted.  She ultimately left the apartment with James in a cab, filed an unrestricted report one week later, was given a sexual assault forensic examination, and an NCIS investigation was initiated.   According to the Applicant’s statement, she chose to remain in the unit, the MM2 was transferred to another command, and charges were ultimately never brought against the MM2 based on the findings of the investigation.  With respect to her second sexual assault, little evidence was presented and the Applicant did not report it to her command or civilian authorities.

The Applicant was seen by military medical professionals and diagnosed with alcohol dependence, PTSD, and major depression.  She was prescribed antidepressants and completed in-patient substance abuse treatment in early 2016.  Feeling she had been rehabilitated and was capable of continued service, she was found fit for duty and transferred from shore to sea duty aboard the.  It was at this point the Applicant acknowledged that she reached out to her previous shore command supervisor (CPO) and asked him to dinner.  This turned into a prolonged romantic relationship.  At some point during her time aboard the, the Applicant was asked if she was still interested in submarine duty.  She acknowledged being ecstatic about this opportunity and began preparing for orders to the.  The Applicant never made it to the Ohio due to a pregnancy – father was the CPO – , and was transferred back to her previous shore command where she fell back under the supervision of the chief with whom she was still in a relationship.  Ultimately, their relationship became known to the command and she fully disclosed the details of it in writing.  However, when she learned of the significance of this prohibited relationship, she backtracked on her original statement indicating she never had a romantic relationship with the chief.  On the other hand, the chief acknowledged their relationship, was taken to SCM and reduced in rank, and was allowed to retire given his 20 plus years of service at the time.  The Applicant received NJP for her part in an unduly familiar relationship and false official statements, and was separated from the Navy with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) characterization of service for misconduct – serious offense on 22 September 2017.  The Applicant gave birth to a daughter in 2018 and the Applicant and the CPO married in 2021.

When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  However, the Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnoses to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct based on the aforementioned opinion of the Board’s Psychiatrist and documentation available for review.  Furthermore, the NDRB is not bound by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB.  Decisions reached by the VA to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Department of the Navy.  The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy and Marine Corps when determining a member’s discharge characterization.

The Board found the Applicant had been afforded and received appropriate medical treatment during her career and desired to continue serving out her enlistment in the submarine community.  There was no indication to the Board that a nexus between her mental health condition and her misconducted existed.  Regardless of whether the Applicant and the CPO were in the same unit or not, regulations prohibit unduly familiar relationships.  This would have been abundantly clear to the Applicant and the CPO, just as it was to the career counselor who turned them in to their command master chief.   Furthermore, the fact the Applicant acknowledged waiting until she left her shore command before contacting the chief demonstrated a level of calculation to the Board and not destructive behavior and poor decision-making stemming from a mental health condition.  Furthermore, after realizing the Navy was serious about the allegations of their relationship, the Applicant made a conscience decision to deceive the investigating officer in an effort to protect her and the CPO.  Again, the Board found this behavior deliberate and not the byproduct of MST and PTSD.  It is also important to highlight that the Applicant’s inappropriate relationships began early in her career when as a junior Sailor (E3) she engaged in an unduly familiar relationship with her superior who was an E5.  The Board was also perplexed by a dismissed specification of Article 92 at NJP that indicated the Applicant had been involved in another unduly familiar relationship with a different E7 in May 2016.

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 considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct; her mental health diagnoses; the nexus between her misconduct and her mental/emotional stability; and the severity of her conduct in relation to her discharge characterization.  Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the Board determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of her conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of her service record.  Again, the Board found the misconduct surrounding her relationship with the chief premeditated in nature and outside the scope of liberal consideration provided by Secretary of Defense Memorandums.  Thus, by majority rule, the Board found an upgrade unwarranted.  The Applicant is welcome to appear before the NDRB to provide greater context surrounding her service and misconduct.  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 servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found .  Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall  UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) with a corresponding separation code of JKQ, 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.