ex- LCDR/O-4 , USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20241016
Characterization of Service Received: (per DD 214) UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)	
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (per DD 214) MISCONDUCT (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge: (per DD 214) SECNAVINST 1920.6C 

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:	NONE		Active:  	USMCR	20090128 - 20100909  HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Appointment:  20121009	Age at Appointment:  25
Years Contracted:  Indefinite
Date of Discharge:  20240731	Highest Rank/Rate:  LCDR/O-4
Length of Service:  13 Years  10 Months  21 Days
Education Level:  16	AFQT: NFIR
Deployment/Operation:  NOT AVAILABLE

Fitness Reports:  Available

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):	GWOTSM NMCAMx4 NMCCM NDSM 

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

SCM:  NONE  SPCM:  NONE  CIVIL ARREST:  NONE  CC:  NONE

NJP:  1

- 20221026:	Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) Extracted from Fitness Report
	Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer) Extracted from Fitness Report
	Awarded:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand, NJP appeal denied 
	Suspended:  NONE

Retention Warning Counseling:  NFIR

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

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

Additional Statements

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

Types of Witnesses Who Testified

	Expert:  ☐			Character: ☐

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until 23 July 2019, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.

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 her discharge was improper because under the Navy’s current rules, she would have been afforded a trial by Court Martial in which a higher standard of proof would have exonerated her of all charges.
2.	The Applicant contends that her discharge was unjust as the MILPERSMAN 1611-202 warrants lesser action and that her detachment for cause and discharge was a result of her filing an Inspector General complaint against her Commander.
3.	The Applicant contends she had mental health issues which affected her Board of Inquiry defense, and eroded her authority and value at her command.

Discussion

Date:  20241218	DOCUMENTARY REVIEW	Location:  WASHINGTON D.C.	Representation:  

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

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

The Applicant's record of service included:

  for  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): 
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming officer)

:  The Applicant contends her discharge was improper because under the Navy’s current rules, she would have been afforded a trial by Court Martial in which a higher standard of proof would have exonerated her of all charges.

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. 

In support of her contention, and as evidence to rebut the presumption of propriety, the Applicant submitted her fitness reports covering the periods of time in review, ALNAV 091/23/JAGINST 5800.7G detailing updates to the Article 15 rule under which one may refuse nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and request a Court Martial when assigned to an operational unit; Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) Article 1611-020 detailing the guidance for detachment for cause (DFC); her Appeal to her Command’s investigation findings and NJP charges against her; the Commanding Officer’s redress to her Appeal of the NJP results; the Commanding Officer’s recommendation to Navy Personnel Command to detach the Applicant for cause; her Appeal to the detachment for cause; the Board of Inquiry findings; and also a Timeline of Events.  Additionally, the Board noted the Applicant’s successful lateral transfer package for (EDO), character testimonies to the Board of Inquiry, and the Applicant’s documentation of her acceptance.

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.  While the Board acknowledges there is a change in policy that would allow the Applicant a new avenue of redress if her discipline proceedings took place after November 2023, the Board found no impropriety in the Commanding Officer’s decision to take the Applicant to mast.  Relief denied.

Issue 2-3: The Applicant contends that her discharge was unjust as the MILPERSMAN 1611-202 warrants lesser action and that her detachment for cause and discharge was a result of her filing an Inspector General complaint against her Commander; and further contends she had mental health issues which affected her Board of Inquiry defense, and eroded her authority and value at her command.

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 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 (anxiety disorder)	
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:	Reviewed the Applicant’s medical treatment records, military service records, and all applicant-provided materials.

The combination of the Applicant's medical treatment files and submitted materials lends to the following conclusions: the applicant was diagnosed with anxiety disorder while on active-duty service and has been treated intermittently for this condition, primarily with medications, since 2019.  Medical records do not indicate that this mental health diagnosis, symptoms or treatment had any significant factor in influencing the member’s conduct, behavior or decision-making process. There is insufficient evidence in the medical record to establish a mitigating nexus between the applicant’s mental health and her misconduct/discharge.

Based on this information, I do not find a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s misconduct/discharge and her mental health.	

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

In this case, the Board found the Applicant’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel.  In determining discharge characterization of service, the Applicant’s conduct forms the primary basis for consideration.  The Applicant was commissioned in October of 2012 and served 13 years, 10 months, and 21 days.  Her highest rank achieved was Lieutenant Commander.  She was awarded a National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, four Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and had been accepted for lateral transfer Naval Post Graduate school just prior to her separation.  Her in-service conduct included one nonjudicial punishments for violations of Article 92 for failing to be present and failing to adhere to standards as well as an Article 113 for making a statement “walkthrough complete, safety brief concluded, with your permission, request permission to conduct the CRP evolution” when she was not present and knew those statements were false.  

The Applicant contends the charges were a result of miscommunication in that the Commanding Officer and the Executive Officer failed to notify her of a new watch bill requiring her to personally oversee.  While the Board found that the detachment for cause request was initiated three months after conclusion of NJP and only one month after the initiation of the Applicant’s IG complaint, the timeline of events alone was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of propriety on the Command’s decision to make a delayed DFC request.  However, the Board did have some concern in the Command’s adherence to the procedural requirements for a detachment for cause request.  The Applicant’s October 2022 post-NJP fitness report made no mention of an intent for detachment for cause in accordance with MILPERSMAN Article 1611-020 paragraph 3.a., but rather marks her as promotable, notes communication challenges, and recommends the Applicant for subsequent Department Head tours.  Additionally, the Applicant’s Command issued no letter of instruction – only a letter of reprimand, as stated in the Commanding Officer’s redress of the Applicant’s NJP appeal. Thus, the Board found an impropriety that the Applicant, having been assigned to another command only 12 days after the incident in question, was never given a reasonable feedback or a period of time to improve and achieve a satisfactory level of performance as required by the MILPERSMAN 1611-020 guidance on Detachment for Cause.  However, the Board noted a DFC request is an action that merely transfers the Applicant and is not the basis for an assignment of characterization/ narrative for separation.  
 
Further, the Applicant provided documentation from the COMNAVSURFLANT 3540.3B dated January 2021 “when designated by the CO, to serve as plant control officer” and which requires all watch bills to be routed - the position held by the Applicant on 10 September 2022.  The Applicant also noted this was a violation.  The Applicant contends that a new watch bill had been drafted by the Executive Officer and signed by the Commanding Officer without her knowledge.  Furthermore, the Applicant offered evidence that her statements to the commanding officer were true and accurate in that she had verified the necessary alignments and safety briefs both personally and via her designated watch team.  The Applicant contends the standard statements made make no inference to her presence or level of involvement and, therefore, were not false.  However, the Command asserted her absence was a willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract and initiated a detachment for cause request with a recommendation for separation from service.  Although recognizing the Command’s obvious frustration with the Applicant conduct and performance, the Board found sufficient evidence the Applicant had met the basic requirements of her position and that the Commanding Officer had not adequately notified the Applicant of a new watch bill, nor address this concern in the Applicant’s appeal to the results of her nonjudicial punishment.  In short, the Board recognized the Command’s obvious concerns with the Applicant’s performance, but noted the Command also held the higher duty of ensuring it followed regulations to protect the integrity of the process. 

The Applicant also contends her mental health affected her ability to mount a defense during her board of inquiry when she was going through separation proceedings, and that her mental health had eroded her authority and value at her command. The Applicant’s record shows that she was diagnosed with anxiety disorder while on active-duty service and has been treated intermittently for this condition, primarily with medications, since 2019.  However, her in service medical records do not indicate that this mental health diagnosis, symptoms or treatment had any significant factor in influencing the member’s conduct, behavior or decision-making process.  There is insufficient evidence in the medical record to establish a mitigating nexus between the Applicant’s mental health and conduct which led to her discharge or her ability to rebut discharge proceedings.

Nonetheless, the Board considered the Applicant’s overall capacity to serve; her entire military performance and conduct (arguably deteriorating but certainly not criminal); her mental health diagnosis; the propriety of the discharge proceedings (discussed above), and the non-severity of her conduct in relation to her discharge characterization.  Consequently, the Board found the Applicant was separated in the best interest of the Service (BIOTS) and that considering the totality of her service (almost 14 years) a change in characterization and ultimate reason/narrative of service was appropriate.  

Decision

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s issues, summary of service,  record entries, and discharge process, the Board found the awarded characterization of service shall  HONORABLE, the narrative reason for separation shall  SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY with a corresponding separation code of JFF.  The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of the discharge.  The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.

ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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