ex- CTISN, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20240110
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge:   MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

Applicant’s Request:	Characterization change to:	
Narrative Reason change to: REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to: NONE REQUESTED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:	               	Active:	 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20080318	Age at Enlistment:  21
Period of Enlistment:  4 Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20130304	Highest Rank/Rate:  CTI3
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  11  Month(s)  17  Day(s)
Education Level:  11	AFQT:  81
Deployment/Operation: 

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency: 3.2 (4)   Behavior/Conduct: 2.8 (4)   OTA: 2.93 
Fitness Reports: 

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

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:   CC:   

NJP:  1

- 20120524:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation) 
	Awarded: RIR  Suspended:  NONE

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:	Master Sergeant Maza, USA
	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. 

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable based on a mental health condition.
Discussion

Date:  20240408		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB), under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.

As a result of the Applicant’s claim of a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma, and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1553, the NDRB included a member who is a physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist.  
Additionally, and pursuant to § 1553, the NDRB reviewed the case with liberal consideration that a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, or Military Sexual Trauma potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser characterization.  A review of the record revealed that the Applicant did not deploy in support of a contingency operation, and so this case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with § 1553.

The Applicant's record of service included:

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

:  The Applicant requests a discharge upgrade from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable based on a mental health condition.

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 partially 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,
USN:  Anxiety
Shift Work Disorder (Circadian Rhythm Disorder), Adjustment Disorder With
Depressed and Anxious Mood

VA:  ADHD; 
Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Unspecified
Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	Yes	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Likely; but Uncertain due to Unable to locate standard discharge physical exam forms.	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	ABBREVIATIONS MAY INCLUDE:
AHLTA:  Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application
MHS GENESIS:  Military Health System's new electronic health record,
FPHS:  From NDRB APPLICATION Submission
p: page/out of total number of pages in casefile 
pp: pages/out of total number of pages in casefile 

HISTORY INCLUDES:

PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT:
“Family Psychiatric history: Sister Bipolar with Pyschotic features.”

Date of Birth:  15 Jan 1987

Education Level:   11

“Family medical history Client was raised by both parents until mother died
when she was 17. Client reported that mother was abusive and suffered from
alcoholism, depression and MS which she became symptomatic of when client was 10. Client described having an older sister who is institutionalized for Bipolar DO with psychotic features and two younger half siblings. Client
described dropping out of high school to move to a different state with
boyfriend, and moving every year until age 21 when she joined the military.”

“Past Medical History: Impingement in shoulders, possible TBI age 16 (kicked
in the head, denies LOC but had dizziness)…”
MEPS:  
     AFQT:   81

18 Mar 2008—ENLISTMENT: 

16 Aug 2011—“[p25/46] KIMBROUGH AMBULATORY CARE CENTER [Fort George G Meade] Clinic: PSYCHOLOGY CL Kl Provider: …ADJUSTMENT DISORDER WITH ANXIETY:
24 year old…requesting for a BH consult, reports she has been going through some personal issues that she did not want to disclose, please eval and treat…”
[LATER THAT DAY:]
Client described 3.5 years in USN on 6 year contract, working as language
analyst Client reported feeling increased stress, anxiety and depressive sx
in past month due to breaking up with boyfriend who also stole her dog,
getting serious car accident, and experiencing insomnia due to being put on
shift work. Client described being unhappy at her job, and concerned about
overusing medication for sleep problems. Client encouraged to discuss this
with psychiatrist…
Family medical history Client was raised by both parents until mother died
when she was 17. Client reported that mother was abusive and suffered from
alcoholism, depression and MS which she became symptomatic of when client was 10. Client described having an older sister who is institutionalized for
Bipolar DO with psychotic features and two younger half siblings. Client
described dropping out of high school to move to a different state with
boyfriend, and moving every year until age 21 when she joined the military.

28 Feb 2012— [p27/46] Fort Meade, MD:
“1. ADJUSTMENT DISORDER
Procedure(s):
-Psychiatric Evaluation Comprehensive Examination x 1
2. ORGANIC CIRCADIAN RHYTHM SLEEP DISORDER SHIFT WORK TYPE…
HPI: 25 y/o single…psychiatric intake after being referred by her physician. Patient reports 2 year history of difficulty sleeping because of her shift schedule. She works 2 days of day shift, followed by 2 days of night shifts with four days off before repeating. Often has difficulty falling asleep and gets on average 5 hrs of sleep. Does not feel well rested upon awakening. Patient tried…[ambien]  and melatonin with minimal effect. She states she had headaches increasing in frequency and intensity over past year. Patient reports significant recent stressors of current boyfriend deployed to Afghanistan, her grandmother passing away in January, and last August her previous boyfriend broke up with her and stole her dog. She described herself as very depressed for about a month. Patient has had an increase in irritability at work, mild
concentration difficulty, fluctuating mood, recent weight loss of 19 lbs
followed by 10 lbs gain since August Reports no difficulties at work or with
significant other. She does state she has some social anxiety with strangers
…She does report some obsessive behaviors at home and work in which things have to be in a certain order or in their place before she can begin. She does not display compulsive behaviors but does state once she starts cleaning she cannot stop until everything is clean…
Family Psychiatric history: Sister Bipolar with Pyschotic features.
Past Medical History: Impingement in shoulders, possible TBI age 16 (kicked
in the head, denies LOC but had dizziness)…

11 Apr 2012 1005—AHLTA Note:
“25 y/o with shift work and problems with excessive sleepiness, anxiety ,depression in the context of stress at work. Please schedule with psychology or SW for individual counseling.”

06-14 May 2012—Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (4 Specifications):

11 May 2012 1417 EDT: 
“1. Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood
Procedure(s): -Psychiatric Therapy Individual Approximately 45-50 Minutes x 1… Comments: Patient has met with psychiatry for medication management since Jan'12. She described mild to moderate…improvement in her symptoms, but continued struggle with processing what feeds into her anxiety and/or depressive symptoms.”

Vitals Written by ________... @ 22 May 2012 1333 EDT…HT: 66 in Stated, WT: 139 lbs…Tobacco Use: No, Alcohol Use: Yes, Have you ever felt you should Cut down on your drinking? No…”

01 Jun 2012—methylphenidate dc’d

04 Jun 2012—From submitted documentation:

“During these events, she was visited by one of her mentors, who discussed with her some of her concentration and task completion problems….has ADHD and brought in a list with common ADHD symptoms which they thought she had ‘all of them’. We discussed ADHD in detail and that I suspect most of her inattention comes from her significant anxiety. However, we agreed to start low dose methylphenidate as a trial – she was not able to tolerate Nuvigil previously for Shift Work and methylphenidate could help with this as well.”  Unable to locate methylphenidate followup.”

07 Jun 2012—WRNMMC AHLTA Entry [p7/30]:
“Visit for: F/u psychotherapy. Patient underwent a psychiatric evaluation in Aug 2011 and was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood. She did not follow up with psychotherapy services, but has subsequently been involved with psychiatry for medication…also diagnosed with Organic circadean rhythm sleep disorder resulting from shift work. Her psychiatrist referred her for flu psychotherapy services due to anxiety and depressive symptoms being exacerbated…
Subjective _
Pt reported improvement in her mood functioning since having been removed from work location. She reported having been disciplined due to expressing her concerns, which resulted in removal from the office. Pt expressed not having felt happier and a preference for not returning. She reported a possibility of an early out from the military as a result, which would also be preferred for her. On OQ 45, pl described experiencing significant problems with concentration difficulties, dissatisfaction with her life, insomnia and fatigue, not feeling her love relationships are full and complete, unhappiness in her significant relationship and an unfulfilling sex life, and work-related issues.”

22 Oct 2012—Clinic visit:  
“Assessment:
This is a 25 y/o female with long patterns of subclinical anxiety symptoms in the context of social situations and, more recently, stressors at work. She also suffers from occasional depressed mood but there is no clear indication that she has met full criteria for a major depressive episode. She is no longer working shifts and her sleep has started to re-normalize…also expressing more stress due to her father (ex military pilot) accepted a contracting job in Afghanistan for the next 5 years.”

04 Mar 2013—DISCHARGE:  GUHC

POST SEPARATION:
17 Aug 2020 (over 7 years post separation)—EFFECTIVE DATE of 50% SC% VASRD determination for “9400-NEUROSIS” without further elaboration.

21 Mar 2023 VA: Togus, ME Psychologist’s “Note: …
Veteran shares that she still has anxiety…Hard for her to maintain friendships and relationships and tends to isolate-feels more anxiety based, because she does not have depressive symptoms. Does not feel comfortable being around people, particularly in large groups and after "socializing" generally finds herself exhausted…
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSION: Anxiety…
Major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified
Anxiety disorder, unspecified”

13 Oct 2023—APPLICANT’S STATEMENT included:

“… undiagnosed ADHD which became increasingly problematic during my military service, is the crux of the matter in explaining and contributing to my discharge…The struggle to manage these symptoms and meet the stringent expectations of military life was a considerable source of frustration, leading to impulsive and disruptive behaviors, which were symptomatic of conduct disorder.”
 
08 Feb 2024 to 07 Feb 2029—Period covering current Certification as a Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP-BC).

COMMENT:  
Per available records and PAH testimony, the Applicant’s formative background included being subjected to an older sister institutionalized for Bipolar Disorder, an abusive mother (who, also, suffered from alcoholism, depression and Multiple Sclerosis diagnosed when the Applicant was age 10 resulting in her death just prior to the approach of  high school graduation), significant/classical symptoms of ADHD (despite which she maintained high grades),  dropping out of high school to move…to a different state with a boy friend, and moving every year until age 21 when she obtained a GED and managed to be accepted by the Navy “as an exception with many unresolved psychological issues.”  The foregoing became an unfortunate prelude to a series of adjustment difficulties precipitated by difficulty adapting to the irregular sleep-wake cycle demands normal to her rating resulting in the diagnoses noted above except for ADHD which went undiagnosed by either the Navy or VA until recently, after a more or less contiguous clinical experience of over 20 years post discharge.  Moreover, she has a list of laudable professional, academic, and personal accomplishments resulting in a Master’s Degree and becoming a Certified Nurse Practitioner, a long term relationship with a Life Partner and dedication to public service in the healthcare arena.  Accordingly, in accord with Kurta criteria, there would appear to be a nexus between the Applicant’s relatively minor misconduct and the conditions noted above, especially, the seminal role of ADHD, and including consideration of merit as a matter of fairness, equity, and clemency.	

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. 

The Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In making its determination, the Board reviewed the Applicant’s service record, medical record, and submission to the Board.  The Board also listened to extensive testimony by the Applicant and one character witness.  The Applicant served four years honorably before being separated for the commission of a serious offense. The serious offense was derived from a series of four occasions in May of 2012 for dereliction of duty, but the Board felt the occasions were more like a series of minor disciplinary infractions related to falling asleep while performing workstation duties during an overnight shift.  The NDRB recognized the repetitive nature of her commissions but did not observe acts that rose to the level of significant misconduct.  The Board viewed the Applicant’s misconduct as disciplinary infractions that compromise the rank and structure of a military organization, but none that jeopardized the reputation of the Navy, endangered the lives of others, or compromised the integrity of the Applicant.  While the record of evidence does reflect disciplinary issues that required corrective action and punishment, the acts do not merit an enduring “general” discharge given the Applicant’s performance during the preponderance of her enlistment.

The Applicant’s post-service diagnoses for ADHD, means that mental health issues were present during the Applicant’s service.  ADHD factually manifests itself much earlier than a diagnosis can accurately be made.  The Board’s medical doctor identified that the Applicant’s medical records indicated her doctors were moving toward an ADHD diagnosis while in service, but never fully diagnosed the condition, and that the Applicant was likely suffering from the condition at the time of discharge.  Thus, we concluded that some liberal consideration was warranted. 

Given the Applicant’s relatively minor disciplinary infractions compared to others separated for serious offenses; the Applicant’s exemplary performance during her post service career; and the presence of mental health problems, the Board decided the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief based on a combination of liberal consideration and clemency.  Clemency in this case is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the discharge imposed.  Liberal consideration acknowledges the disruption of normalcy caused by the outcomes from an undiagnosed and untreated ADHD condition. Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service to honorable was appropriate.

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  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF1, and the reentry code shall  RE-1.  The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews by the NDRB.  The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149.  

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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