ex- SSgt, 

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20241029
Characterization of Service Received:   
Narrative Reason for Discharge:   MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge:   MARCORSEPMAN 6210.6 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE] 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Creditable Service:
Inactive:   	             	Active:   20120830 - 20200206  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment:  20200207	Age at Enlistment:  
Period of Enlistment:   Years   Extension
Date of Discharge:  20240216	Highest Rank/Rate:  SSgt
Length of Service:  04  Year(s)  00  Month(s)  09  Day(s)
Education Level:  12	AFQT:  39
Deployment/Operation:  
Fitness Reports:  

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	Rifle  (5) Pistol  NMCAM (2) GCM (3) NDSM GWOTSM SSDR CoC (Individual Award) CoA LoA (12)  

IHCA: 20200303-20200313, 10 days, absence not excused.
Periods of UA:  NONE
Periods of CONF:  NONE
Other Time Lost per DD214:  NONE

SCM:    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:    NJP:  NONE

CC:  1

- 20220601:	Offense: Felony Strangulation of Spouse. (Pled guilty) 
	Sentence: 5 years confinement (suspended), placed on probation for five years, and ordered to complete 500 hours of community service. [Extracted from Commander’s letter dated 20230509 as part of Applicant’s supporting documents]  

Retention Warning Counseling:  1

- 20220920:	For violating Virginia Code 18.2-51.6 by strangling his spouse J.R.A. 

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

	  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20120830 UNTIL 20200206”
	
The NDRB will recommend to Commander, Navy Personnel or Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

	From Applicant:		From/To Representation:		From/To Congress member:	

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Paragraph 6210.6, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO 1900.16 CH 2), effective 15 February 2019 until present.

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 128b.  (FOR COSO ONLY)

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

Applicant’s Issues

1.	The Applicant contends that his discharge was both improper and inequitable.
2.	The Applicant contends that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) were mitigating factors in the misconduct leading to discharge.
3.	The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
Discussion

Date:  20250421		Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Manker v. Del Toro, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s previous NDRB Decision because it was issued between March 2, 2012, and February 15, 2022 for Iraq and Afghanistan era Navy and Marine Corps Veterans who received General or Under Other-than-Honorable (UOTH) discharges while having a diagnosis(es) (or symptoms) of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral/mental health conditions.  The NDRB automatically reconsidered the Applicant’s case to ensure appropriate application of Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance regarding the effect of PTSD, TBI, MST and behavioral/mental health conditions upon service members, and how such effects may have affected conduct ultimately leading to an individual’s discharge. 

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

The Applicant's record of service included:

- For violating Virginia Code 18.2-51.6 by strangling his spouse J.R.A. 

           - Offense: Felony Strangulation of Spouse. (Pled guilty) 
              Sentence:  5 years confinement (suspended), placed on probation for five years, and ordered to complete 500 hours of 
              community service. [Extracted from Commander’s letter dated 20230509 as part of Applicant’s supporting   
              documents]  

:  The Applicant contends that his discharge was both improper and inequitable.  

The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper and inequitable due to failure of the command to follow prescribed procedures.  Specifically, the Administrative Separation Board, after reviewing all evidence and testimony, voted in favor of the Applicant’s retention in service.  Despite this recommendation, the Applicant was ultimately separated from service.  It is the Applicant’s position that the proper endorsement from the authorized separation authority was not obtained in accordance with applicable regulations, thereby rendering the discharge procedurally deficient.  Furthermore, the Applicant contends that the discharge was inequitable.  The decision to discharge failed to reflect the Administrative Separation Board’s findings and disregarded the Applicant’s demonstrated potential for continued service.  The Board acknowledged in the record that Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps provided documentation indicating that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN M&RA) carefully reviewed the service’s recommendation to discharge the Applicant under the basis of Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.  While ASN M&RA ultimately concurred with the command’s recommendation and directed the discharge without suspension, this decision was contrary to the Separation Board’s formal recommendation for retention.  The Applicant contends that such a departure from the Board’s findings, without clear justification or documented rationale, undermines the integrity of the separation process and contributes to the inequity of the discharge.  

It is acknowledged that the government is afforded a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The burden rests with the Applicant to present substantial and credible evidence to rebut this presumption.  However, the record lacks sufficient documentation to conclusively demonstrate that the appropriate separation authority’s endorsement was not properly obtained in accordance with governing regulations.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption regularity, particularly in the absence of corroborating administrative documentation.

:  The Applicant contends that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) were mitigating factors in the misconduct leading to discharge.

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, “mental 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, “liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade, relief 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, “premeditated misconduct is not generally excused by mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; or by a sexual assault or sexual harassment experience.”  Therefore, “Review Boards will exercise caution in assessing the causal relationship between asserted conditions or experiences and premeditated misconduct.” See USD (P&R) Memo, “Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment” 25 August 2017 (“Kurta Memo”).

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

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

MEDICAL BOARD MEMBER OPINION

1.	Does the available record reasonably support a DSM mental/behavioral health condition, PTSD, TBI, or Sexual Trauma/Abuse/IPV existed at the time of the Applicant’s military service?	Yes (adjustment disorder, concussion without loss of consciousness (TBI) in-service; anxiety, depression, PTSD by civilian psychologist)	
2.	A.	Were these conditions present at time of misconduct?	Yes	
	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 diagnosed and treated for an adjustment disorder and TBI during active-duty service with additional diagnoses of anxiety, depression and PTSD by a civilian psychologist. The applicant’s diagnosis of PTSD is noted to be related to the incidents that occurred at the time of the applicant’s misconduct and civil conviction and did not pre-date or influence the misconduct offense. It is therefore difficult to determine how any PTSD diagnosis or treatment could have affected the applicant’s behavior or conduct since the diagnosis, treatment and any symptoms of this mental health condition occurred after the misconduct offense. Concerning TBI, the applicant was treated for concussion without loss of consciousness (TBI) in 2014 and was found to have mild/minimal symptoms and was returned fit for full duty including special duty/aviation duties when required. There is no indication that any TBI symptoms had any direct causal effect on the applicant’s ability to make informed and rational decisions.

Based on this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct and his mental health or history of TBI.	

When reviewing discharges, the Board considers the standards for determining characterization of service where an Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel.  Further, an honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military service; many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. 

In this case, the Board determined that the Applicant engaged in conduct that constituted a significant departure from the conduct and standards expected of members of the Naval Service.  Certain serious offenses, particularly those involving violence, necessitate separation from the Naval Service to preserve good order and discipline within the ranks.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Applicant was convicted of a felony offense—strangulation—in a Virginia Circuit Court.  This conviction formed the basis for his processing for administrative separation.  Given the nature and severity of the offense, the Marine Corps assessed that retaining the Applicant posed an unacceptable risk and therefore forwarded the case to the Secretary of the Navy for final disposition.  Ordinarily, such an offense may warrant a punitive discharge and potential confinement if adjudicated as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.  However, because the conviction occurred in a civilian court, the command elected not to pursue punitive discharge and instead initiated administrative separation proceedings.

In making its determination, the Board conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s service and medical records and all available evidence.  The Board determined that the Applicant met the criteria for separation under the basis of Misconduct Commission of a Serious Offense.  The Board took into account the Applicant’s claim that mental health conditions—specifically PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI)—were mitigating factors contributing to his misconduct.  While acknowledging that such conditions may provide context, the Board concluded that they did not absolve the Applicant of responsibility for his violent behavior.  The nature of the offense—felony strangulation of his spouse—was determined to be a clear act of willful misconduct that could not be excused solely by the presence of mental health issues.    

Finally, the Board carefully considered the Applicant’s capacity to serve, including his overall military performance and conduct, the nexus between his mental health condition and the violent incident, and the severity of the offense in relation to discharge characterization standards.  Applying the standard of liberal consideration, the Board ultimately found that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct.  The Applicant’s failure to accept full accountability, 

despite awareness of the potential consequences, further supported the conclusion that his actions were a significant departure from the expectations of Naval Service members.  The Board determined that the characterization of service—General (Under Honorable Conditions)—was appropriate and warranted, given the violent nature of the offense and the insufficiency of mitigating circumstances to overcome the gravity of the misconduct.  Relief not granted.   

The NDRB recognizes that serving in the all-volunteer Armed Forces is challenging but reflects a commitment to our Nation; thus, service members deserve to be recognized upon completion of their service.  One of the ways in which our service members are recognized is through the determination of their characterization of service.  Most servicemembers, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their Honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Marines and Sailors who served honorably, Commanders and Separation Authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving servicemembers receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances.

:  The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade to Honorable.  

The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct warrants favorable consideration for an upgrade of his discharge.  The NDRB evaluates post-service accomplishments to the extent that such matters offer a more comprehensive understanding of an Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Since his discharge, the Applicant has demonstrated sustained positive behavior, including maintaining stable employment and showing a commitment to personal growth.  These efforts are commendable and reflect the values consistent with those upheld by the Naval Service, suggesting that the Applicant has taken meaningful steps toward personal development and responsibility.  However, while post-service conduct is a relevant factor, it does not in itself guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge.  Each case is reviewed individually to assess whether post-service conduct provides sufficient insight into or mitigate the circumstances that led to the discharge.  In this case, although the Board acknowledged the Applicant’s commendable post-service conduct and considered it a positive indicator of rehabilitation, it ultimately found that these efforts alone did not outweigh the severity of the misconduct committed during service.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the Applicant’s post-service conduct, while noteworthy, was insufficient as a sole basis for granting an upgrade in discharge characterization.  Relief denied.  

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  GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS), the narrative reason for separation shall  MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE with a corresponding separation code of GKQ1, 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 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 re-enlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct: DoD disability regulations do not preclude 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.