ex- Pvt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20091105
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   COURT-MARTIAL
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 1105 [COURT-MARTIAL] 

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:  		Active:   

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20051105	Age at Enlistment:  	
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20091105	Highest Rank/Rate:  Cpl
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  06  Month(s)  26  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  33
Deployment/Operation:  

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

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  Pistol  NDSM GWOTSM ICM SSDR NMCAM CAR GCM 

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

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    CC:   	

NJP:  2

- 20080813:	Article 86 (Absence without leave)  
	Awarded:  FOP  Suspended:  FOP
- 20081114:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
	Article 134 (General article)
	Awarded:  RIR RESTR EPD FOP  Suspended:   

SPCM:  

	- 20090312:   Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances) 
	   Sentence:  RIR E-1 CONF 90 days (20090312-20090610) FOP
	   CA: BCD 

Retention Warning Counseling: 4  

-20070402:	Counseled this date concerning an alcohol related incident. SNM was arrested by the Jacksonville Police for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol BAC of 0.15. 

- 20080813:	For violation of Article 86, counseled this date for awarded NJP. 
- 20090327:	From Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, request for voluntary appellate leave approved.  
- 20090828:	From Judge Advocate General, promulgation of Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeal. 
	Court Martial, NMCCA No. 200900258.

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:  Dr. Kevin Rumley		Witness C-1:	
	Witness E-2:  			Witness C-2:

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 1105, DISCHARGE ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F ch 2), effective 6 June 2007 until 25 November 2013.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.

C.  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 chronic pain was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.
Discussion

Date:  20250408		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 February to September 2006 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:

- Counseled this date concerning an alcohol related incident. SNM was arrested by the Jacksonville Police for operating 
             a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol BAC of .15. 
- For violation of Article 86, counseled this date for awarded NJP. 
- From Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, request for voluntary appellate leave approved.  
- From Judge Advocate General, promulgation of Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeal.  Court Martial, 
             NMCCA No. 200900258.

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 86 (Absence without leave)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
Article 134 (General article)

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

:  The Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain was a mitigating factor 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 have a condition/experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge; b) the condition existed during military service; c) the condition/experience mitigated the underlying basis/misconduct for the discharge; and d) the condition/experience outweighed the Applicant’s assigned discharge characterization.  

Medical Board Member Opinion

1. 	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service? 	                                                      PTSD     
                                                 Chronic Pain                         	
2. 	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct? 	                                                      Yes  
 	
	B.	Were these conditions mitigating for the misconduct? 	Yes (see below) 	
3. 	Were all required mental health and/or medical evaluations conducted in accordance with regulations, prior to the administrative separation of the applicant? 	                                                     Yes 	
4. 	Medical board member comments: 	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials. 
 
The Marine Corps separated the Applicant. 
 
Brief timeline:  
Entry:  15FEB2005 
         
            2006 – Deployment 
            23JUN2006 – IED blast - L foot injury  
            02APR2007 – DUI 
            13AUG2008 – NJP Art. 86 
            14-24JAN2009 – Heroin use à 90 days confinement and BCD 
 
SEP:    05NOV2009 
 
            The medical record outlines a clear timeline of a Marine suffering injury and loss, to an Applicant that still is burdened from residual PTSD, and chronic pain.  The well documented management of pain with narcotic pain management also contributed to dependence and withdrawal symptoms that are also chronicled in the record.  The Applicant knew that substance abuse (including heroine – which he plead guilty to during Court Martial hearing) was wrong; however, the exposures of serving in 2006 (in Iraq, with wounds received) with the Marine Corps and the prescribed pain management of chronic pain (daily prescribed narcotics – and then withdrawal) in 2008 may have likely contributed to a milieu of mental and physiologic changes that contributed to the ability for the Applicant to make bad decisions, especially in regard to the use of narcotic medicines for relief of pain.  
 
           Based on this information, I do find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and the Applicant’s Mental Health. 	

The Applicant was found guilty of his actions at SPCM.  In accordance with Secretary of the Navy Manual 5420.1 ¶ 222, relevant and material facts as stated in a court-martial are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  As such, matters of propriety related to the conduct of a punitive court-martial (e.g., Special Court-Martial) are addressed through the appellate review process by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals or through further petitioning for a review by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.  The Applicant’s appellate rights statement and certification of his acknowledgment of those rights, which detail this process, are appended to the verbatim record of trial by court-martial.  In the Applicant’s case, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the decision.  

On 2 April 2007, the Applicant was arrested by the Jacksonville Police for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a BAC of 0.15.  On 6 August 2008, the Applicant failed to report to his appointed place of duty.  On 14 November 2008, the Applicant failed to stop his motor vehicle after being involved in a collision while driving with a suspended driver’s license.  The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances).   Between 27 December 2008 to 6 January 2009, and between 14 to 24 January 2009, the Applicant wrongfully used heroin.  Subsequently, the Applicant was processed for separation by Special Court-Martial which resulted in a Bad Conduct Discharge.  
Additionally, the Applicant’s in-service conduct included two nonjudicial punishments for violation of Article 86, 92 and 134 of the UCMJ.  

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.  A Bad-Conduct Discharge (which is an authorized sentence at both a General Court-Martial and a Special Court-Martial) is a severe punishment, although less severe than a dishonorable discharge, and may be adjudged for one who in the discretion of the court warrants severe punishment for bad conduct even though such bad conduct may not include the commission of serious offenses of a military or civil nature.   

In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant’s in-service conduct included one nonjudicial punishments for violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ.  However, the Applicant contends his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain was a mitigating factor in his misconduct.  The medical record shows a clear timeline of the Applicant suffering injury and loss, to an Applicant that is still burdened from residual PTSD and chronic pain.  The Applicant’s received two surgeries to repair a broken foot after an IED explosion.  The documentation of pain management with over prescribed narcotics contributed to the dependence and withdrawal symptoms that are also reported in the service record.  The Applicant knew that substance abuse was wrong, however, the exposures of serving in Iraq in 2006, with wounds received, and the daily prescribed narcotics for pain management of chronic pain, with subsequent withdrawal in 2008, likely led to a situation of mental and physiologic changes that contributed to the Applicant’s misconduct, especially in regard to the use of narcotic medicines for pain relief.  The Applicant survived horrific explosions in Iraq and rose through the darkness of his opioid addiction and rebuilt his life despite the hardships he endured and has not had any relapse issues in over eleven years.  

The Board took note of the Applicant’s over four years of extensive career of service to the Nation, which included sustained superior performance in his duties.  The Applicant earned a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Global War on Terror Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and a Good Conduct Medal.  The Board understood the pain and trauma associated with such a duty, which provided additional context into the Applicant’s behaviors.  The Board found that based on the severity of the Applicant’s mental health challenges, it is reasonable to assume that his mental health conditions influenced his behavior and conduct.  Based on this information, and applying liberal consideration, the Board did find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health.

The Board also considered the impact of his mental health diagnosis, as explained in various medical documents.  The Board acknowledges that, “research literature on PTSD and substance use suggests a strong link between PTSD and self-medication in the absence of mental health treatment;” the nexus between the Applicant’s drug use, chronic pain and mental/emotional stability; and the severity of his conduct in relation to his discharge characterization.  The Applicant’s medical records provide 
sufficient evidence that he had early onset PTSD; however, the commensurate, in-service, follow-on care was not adequate.    Considering the Kurta Memo, the Board recognized it is not uncommon for individuals with PTSD and chronic pain to use drugs and/or alcohol as a means of managing their distress; the Applicant was struggling with significant symptoms of PTSD, chronic pain and grief over the loss of fellow service members in Iraq.  The Board acknowledges that this does not excuse the Applicant’s behavior; however, provides a context for understanding his behavior at the time of the misconduct.    

With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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.  In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The Board found a mitigating mental health nexus between medical evidence of record contained sufficient extenuating factors to outweigh the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  

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 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-4.  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.