ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20241010
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.5 [DRUGS] 

Applicant’s Request:	
Characterization change to:  
Narrative Reason change to:  REQUESTED BUT NOT SPECIFIED
Reentry Code change to:  REQUESTED, BUT NOT SPECIFIED

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:  	NONE		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20070226	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20091023	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCpl
Length of Service:  02  Year(s)  07  Month(s)  0  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  40
Deployment/Operation:  

Evaluation Marks (# of occasions):  Performance/Proficiency:  3.9 (8)   Behavior/Conduct:  4.0 (8)
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  ICM (2) SSDR GWOTSM NDSM NUC

Periods of UA: 20090606- 20090609, 4 days
Periods of CONF:  20090724 - 20090815, 23 days
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SPCM:   

SCM:   
- 20090723:	Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances)  
	Awarded:  FOP CONF  30 Days   Suspended:  NONE  

NJP:  3
- 20080729:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)  
	Awarded:  FOP RESRT EPD    Suspended:  NONE  
- 20090331:	Article 86 (Absence without leave)
	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications)
	Specification 1: On 20090213 consumed of alcohol under the legal drinking age and operated a motor vehicle which resulted in an automobile accident on 20090214
	Specification 2: Failed to wear his seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle resulting in personal injuries
	Article 107 (False official statement, made a false official statement to staff sergeant regarding his requirement to report to the Battalion OOD on 20090216
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD	Suspended: NONE	
- 20090513:   Article 86 (Absence without leave)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Specification 1: Failed to report to Battalion OOD for restriction, from 20090403 – 20090411
	Specification 2: Having an unauthorized visitor in barracks on 20090417
	Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD	Suspended: NONE

CIVIL ARREST:  
	- 20090214:  DUI

CC:  
	- 20090414:  DUI

Retention Warning Counseling:  6
- 20070713:	For failure to report to the DNCO for duty as the A wing Firewatch Marbury in Ft Sill, OK. 
- 20071108:	For disobeying a lawful order given by the Battery First Sergeant.
- 20080729:	For NJP for Art 92, failure to obey an order or regulation.  
- 20090401:	For underage consumption, failure to be at appointed place of duty, and continued pattern of misconduct.
- 20090414:	For civilian conviction of DUI in Jacksonville, NC.
- 20090722:	For unauthorized absence on 20090519 and from 20090604 to 20090610. Violation of restriction and unauthorized visitors.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):	10/19/2011
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:	MD11-00493
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:		Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013, Paragraph 6210.5, MISCONDUCT.

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

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and MDD (Major Depressive Disorder) were mitigating factors in his misconduct.
2.	The Applicant contends that as military regulations have changed, the Applicant would have been afforded rights that would have materially affected the received discharge characterization.
3.	The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
4.	The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
Discussion

Date:  20250625		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.  The Applicant’s service record documents completion of a deployment from April to October 2008 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.  Pursuant to § 1553 (d)(2), the service secretary expedited a final decision and accorded the case sufficient priority to achieve an expedited resolution.  

The Applicant's record of service included:

- For failure to report to the DNCO for duty as the A wing Firewatch Marbury in Ft Sill, OK. 
- For disobeying a lawful order given by the Battery First Sergeant.
- For NJP for Art 92, failure to obey an order or regulation.  
- For underage consumption, failure to be at appointed place of duty, and a continues pattern of misconduct.
- For civilian conviction of DUI in Jacksonville, NC.
- For unauthorized absence on 20090519 and from 20090604 to 20090610. Violation of restriction and unauthorized visitors.

    for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
Article 107 (False official statements; false swearing)
Article 134 (General article)

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

	DUI

:  The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and MDD (Major Depressive Disorder) were mitigating factors in his misconduct.

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 not have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition did not exist 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?	No (post service PTSD) 	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	No 	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct?	No (see below)  	
3.	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant?	Yes 	
4.	Medical Board Member comments:	 
The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files, submitted materials, and all other information lends to the following conclusions: the Applicant was not diagnosed, treated or complained of any symptoms of a mental health disorder during active-duty service.  While a diagnosis of PTSD made post-service does exist in the Applicant’s record, there is little convincing evidence in the medical records that any mental health symptoms existed during the Applicant’s military service or that, if present, any of the Applicant’s mental health symptoms had an impact on the Applicant’s ability to make sound judgment, control his behavior, appreciate moral differences, or distinguish between permissible and prohibited behavior. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence in the medical record to establish a mitigating nexus between the applicant’s mental health and his acts of misconduct. 
 
Based on this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health. 	

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included three nonjudicial punishments for violation of Articles 86, 92, 107, and 134 of the UCMJ, one summary court-martial for violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ, and one civil conviction for driving under the influence.  However, the Applicant contends his PTSD and MDD were mitigating factors in his misconduct.  The Applicant’s official military service record contains no diagnosis of PTSD or MDD; however the Applicant is diagnosed post service with PTSD.  The Applicant has no VA service connected disability rating.  Based on the facts of the case and the opinion of the medical officer the Board found that while a diagnosis of PTSD made post-service does exist in the Applicant’s record, there is little convincing evidence that any mental health symptoms existed during the Applicant’s military service.  Moreover, the Applicant’s self-described symptoms and experiences had no impact on the Applicant’s ability to make sound judgment, control his behavior, appreciate moral differences, or distinguish between permissible and prohibited behavior.  The Board concluded unanimously that there was insufficient evidence to establish a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s purported PTSD and his acts of misconduct.  As no mitigating nexus could be determined, the Board could not find any basis for relief via the application of liberal considerations.

:  The Applicant contends that as military regulations have changed, the Applicant would have been afforded rights that would have materially affected the received discharge characterization.

Based on a thorough review of the brief provided from the Applicant’s Counsel, the Board acknowledged there have been substantive changes to the processes and procedures for the discharge of servicemembers who have deployed in support of contingency operations as it relates to TBI and PTSD screening.  However, the Board determined that this would not have materially changed the outcome of required mandatory administrative separation processing and a determination of Other than Honorable Conditions based on the Applicant’s multiple instances of substance abuse and inability to follow orders.  The Applicant has a well-documented history of misconduct that occurred prior to and after his combat deployment.  Furthermore, the Applicant had and received multiple opportunities to utilize well-known resources for mental health support and communicate that need via his PDHA and PDHRA.  Furthermore, when given this opportunity and evaluated in his Substance Abuse treatment, medical professionals concluded the Applicant had no diagnosable mental health conditions in-service.

-4:  The Applicant contends the totality of his in-service and post-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 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.  It has been approximately 15 years since the incidents of misconduct occurred.  In the intervening time the Applicant worked diligently to earn an opportunity at a second chance.  The Applicant held consistent employment capable of providing for the needs of his family.  The Applicant was subject to randomized drug screening and refrained from any continued substance abuse since service.  The Applicant is an active participant in the AA community and receives periodic therapy in support of on-going post service mental health treatment.  The Applicant has been committed to continued public service supporting the local veteran’s community through various charitable events.  The Applicant expresses a deep sense of profound dismay for his prior actions, taking responsibility for his impact on others and how that has guided his actions of atonement over the past 15 years.

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.  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 conduct.  

In consideration for all these factors, to include weighing the severity of the misconduct in relation to the assigned characterization/narrative for discharge, the Board majority determined that the unique circumstances of this case warranted relief primarily based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.  Additionally, clemency is a general term for the administrative review or action, other than the correction of legal error, which results in mitigation, remission, or suspension of the whole or any part of the unexecuted portion of a court-martial sentence, restoration to duty, the voluntary retention on active duty beyond the obligated term of enlistment, or reenlistment.  Clemency also includes substitution for good cause an administrative discharge for an executed punitive discharge or dismissal in select cases.  Consequently, the Board found a change in characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) is appropriate.

Dissenting Opinion

The Board minority concluded the Applicant engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  The Applicant served 2 years, 7 months.  In that time, the Applicant demonstrated an inability to conform to the rules and regulations of military service.  

Timeline:
-FEB 07: Ships to Bootcamp.
-JUL 07: Formal counseling for unauthorized absence in failing to report for the basic duty of watch standing.
-NOV 07: Formal counseling for failing to obey an order from his Battery First Sergeant.
-APR 08: Combat meritorious promotion.
-JUL 08: 1st NJP Forward deployed in combat and subject to NJP for huffing; also documented in a formal counseling.
-FEB 09: underage DUI arrest resulting in a life flight of a fellow Marine and injuries requiring medical treatment to himself and another fellow Marine passenger.
-MAR 09: 2nd NJP for UA, underage drinking, operating a vehicle under the influence, failing to wear a seat belt, lying to a SNCO.
-APR 09: Formal counseling for underage drinking and pattern of misconduct; additional formal counselling for DUI conviction.  Breaks the terms of restriction twice for check in requirements and unauthorized visitors.
-MAY 09: two UA incidents; 3rd NJP for one of UA incidents in May and breaking/violating restriction in April.
-JUN 09: UA for 7 days and violated restriction orders; Returns from UA status and put in the Brig; test positive for MJ during Brig intake; Released from Brig (date NFIR) and back to restriction.
-JUL 09: Formal counselling for second UA event in May and for 7 days in June, additional violated restriction orders. Agrees to Summary Court-martial for violation of 112a found during June Brig intake and waives rights to ADSEP hearing. Incarcerated in the Brig again as part of SCM sentence.
-AUG 09: Release from the Brig.
-OCT 09: Separated from the Marine Corps.

The Applicant joined with a history of illegal substance use as seen in his entry level waiver of FBE on his DD form 1966.  Within 5 months of service the Applicant began to demonstrate what would be a willful disregard for rules and regulations governing the conduct of servicemembers.  The Applicant consistently showed a blatant disregard for appropriate respect towards superiors and their lawful orders.  Further the Applicant demonstrated a pattern of substance abuse in line with preservice misconduct.  The Applicant’s cavalier attitude escalated to the point that the command felt it was left with no other option than incarceration after the Applicant repeatedly broke restriction orders in April and May of 2009.

An UOTH is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Marine or Sailor, which encompasses misconduct such as, but are not limited to: the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of special positions of trust, disregard of customary senior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions endangering the security of the Marine Corps, deliberate acts or omissions seriously endangering the health and safety of others.  The Applicant’s conduct is egregious enough to satisfy multiple basis for separation under this definition.  For example, “Huffing” compressed air with the intention of getting high is a violation of SECNAVINST 5300.28D (Military Substance Abuse Prevention and Control), which requires, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation.  This misconduct is further aggravated by the fact it was done in an active combat zone where fellow Marines lives depended on the Applicant’s lucid and focused performance of his duties.  In another abuse of his fellow Marines’ trust, the Applicant’s civil conviction of a DUI is grounds for separation under the commission of a serious offense.  This misconduct is aggravated in that his actions lead to a vehicular accident and caused direct physical injury to himself and fellow Marines that were passengers in the vehicle.  Moreover, a minimum of two 6105 counselings or two NJPs within one enlistment are sufficient to establish a pattern of misconduct separation.  The Applicant has six 6105s and three NJPs in less than three years of service in one period of enlistment.  Lastly, this misconduct still fails to include his actual basis of separation, the wrongful use of marijuana as validated in a urinalysis during initial incarceration at the Brig.  Whereas the Applicant had extremely brief moments of appropriate performance, on balance the record of service shows repeated flagrant belligerence well outside the minimum expectations of appropriate conduct.  Any one of the above Applicant’s actions satisfy the assignment of an UOTH discharge.  Given the limited time in service, the bodily harm the Applicant caused to fellow Marines in the conduct of his DUI and a complete wanton disregard for lawful orders, the Board minority found that the Applicant’s in-service/post service accomplishments and unique facts of the case did not justify relief.

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 determined awarded characterization of service shall  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT with a corresponding separation code of HKK1, and the reentry code shall  RE-4B.  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.