ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  1 August 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170006443


APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, her undesirable discharge be upgraded based on 
the 25 August 2017 memorandum for service Secretaries from the Department of 
Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
concerning requests from Soldier’s who suffered sexual assault or sexual harassment 
during their period of service.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3 year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant states she received an under other than honorable conditions 
characterization of service.  She received her characterization of service because of 
racism, sexual harassment, unfair treatment, physical abuse, mental abuse, and 
personal trauma to include military sexual trauma and military sexual abuse.  She has 
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  She states she was treated unfairly when she 
served in the U.S. Army in 1971.  She was told that if she wanted to be safe, she 
needed to leave the U.S. Army in order to not be subjected to the constant abuse she 
received at the hands of sergeants and fellow Soldiers.  She states a review of her 
personnel records will show she went absent without leave (AWOL) and was court-
martialed for her absences.  She went AWOL because of the treatment she received 
during advanced individual training.  She suffers from mental illness and receives 
treatment because of her experiences while in the military.  She further states she was 
subjected to humiliating punishments like cleaning the floor with a razor edge.  She also 
was harassed by homosexual women because she would not accept their sexual 
advances.  The military police physically abused her because of her color and because 
she would not accept their sexual advances. 
3.  On 31 August 1970 she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  This 
established her expiration of term of service date for active service as 30 August 1973.  

4.  She reported to Fort McClellan, Alabama for basic training where she received 
"Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings as shown on her DA Form 20 (Enlisted 
Qualification Record.)  She then attended advanced individual training where she 
received a "Good” rating for her conduct and a "Fair" rating for her efficiency.  She 
received training and was qualified in military occupational specialty 72B 
(Communication Center Specialist).  

5.  On 6 January 1971 near the completion of her advanced individual training, she 
accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place 
of duty and for being derelict in the performance of her duties in that she willingly failed 
to perform her prescribed duties in the Orderly Room.  She did not demand trial by 
court-martial.  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of $15 per month for 1 month.  
Unit Orders Number 2 issued by the Clerical Training Company show on 9 January 
1971 she forfeited $15 per month for 1 month as authorized by the 6 January 1971 
Article 15, UCMJ. 

6.  On or about 19 April 1971 she was transferred to Fort Rucker, Alabama where she 
was assigned to duties in the Communication Center.  

7.  On 24 August 1971, the applicant’s commander prepared a DA Form 2496 
(Disposition Form) with the subject "Enlisted Conduct and/or Efficiency.”  Her company 
commander stated conduct and efficiency ratings were required based on her being 
absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 August through 23 August 1971.  Her battalion 
commander rated her conduct and efficiency as "Unsatisfactory."  This information was 
transferred onto her DA Form 20. 

8.  On 30 August 1971 she accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of 
Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from her Fort Rucker unit from 1000 hours 20 August 
1971 to 1700 hours 23 August 1971.  She had violated Article 86 of the UCMJ.  Her 
punishment included forfeiture of $50 per month for 2 months which was suspended 
until 30 November 1971.  She did not appeal.  

9.  On 3 September 1971 she again went AWOL.  Her company commander prepared a 
DA Form 2496 informing her senior leaders that there were no known difficulties which 
might have led to the applicant’s AWOL status such as domestic strife, indebtedness, or 
trouble with superiors.  Additionally, there was no evidence or indication of foul play or 
mental instability which might have led to her AWOL.  Finally, there was no record or 
any evidence she would not return to duty and no evidence was found within her 
personal effects.  

10.  On 9 September 1971 her company commander prepared another DA Form 2496 
showing the applicant’s conduct from 20 August to 3 September 1971 was 
"Unsatisfactory."  This information was recorded on her DA Form 20.

11.  On 4 October 1971 her Article 15, UCMJ, punishment imposed on 31 August 1971 
was vacated.  Her imposed punishment was forfeiture of $50 per month for 2 months.  

12.  On 22 October 1971, Headquarters Command, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort 
Rucker, Alabama issued Special Court-Martial Order Number 30 showing she was 
found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty on 2 September 1971 and for 
going AWOL from her unit on 4 September 1971 and remaining absent until on or about 
18 September 1971.  She was sentenced to reduction to the rank and grade of 
private/E-1 and forfeiture of $80 per month for 4 months.  The sentence was adjudged 
on 21 September 1971.  The sentence was approved by the special court-martial 
convening authority and ordered executed. 

13.  On 11 November 1971, a DA Form 2496 filed in her record shows she was pending 
elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - 
Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability).

14.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge proceedings 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 were not contained in her military 
records.  There is a letter showing a Board of Officers was appointed on or about 
2 December 1971.  

15.  On 12 January 1972 the Board Recorder signed an endorsement stating the 
applicant had waived her right to appear before a Board of Officers as authorized by 
Army Regulation 635-212.  

16.  On 17 January 1972 she signed a DA Form 2496 stating she had been furnished a 
copy of the proceedings leading to her discharge. 

17.  Special Orders Number 11 were issued on 17 January 1972 showing the applicant 
was discharged effective the same date and her discharge characterization of service 
was under conditions other than honorable due to her misconduct.  The authority for her 
discharged is shown as Army Regulation 625-212.  

18.  Accordingly she was issued a DD Form 214 showing she was discharged under 
conditions other than honorable on 17 January 1971 with issuance of an Undesirable 
Discharge Certificate.  The reason and authority for discharge was listed as Army 
Regulation 635-212 with a separation program number (SPN) 28B (unfitness, frequent 
involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  She 
completed 1 year, 3 months and 17 days of total active service with lost time from 
20 August to 22 August 1971 and from 4 September to 30 September 1971.  

19.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in 1976.  Upon 
review of her military records and her personal evidence, the ADRB denied her relief.  It 
appears she did not apply for a personal appearance hearing before the ADRB within 
that board’s 15-year statutory limitation.

20.  On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge 
Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
(BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on 
applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than 
honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental 
health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it 
would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

21.  On 16 June 2017 after her application to the ABCMR, the staff of the Board asked 
her to provide copies of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records or civilian 
medical records to support her contention that she has PTSD.

22.  She responded by providing pharmacy records showing she was prescribed 
sertraline which is an antidepressant medication used to treat a variety of conditions 
including depression and other mental/mood disorders.  It can be used to treat PTSD.   
She also provided a personal statement wherein she said to was admitted to a VA 
medical center four times since her release from active duty.  She continues in her 
statement as follows:

     a.  she was raped by a sergeant when she was a private first class.  At the time of 
the rape she was a virgin and had wanted to remain a virgin until she married. 

     b.  she was mentally tormented by homosexual women who wanted her to 
participate in homosexual activities.  She recalls fighting off their advances in the day 
room of her barracks and that the military police were called. 

     c.  she does not recall why she was discharged but does remember being promised 
an honorable discharge after 6 years.

     d.  she is depressed when she recalls the rape incident and the sexual advances by 
homosexual women.  

     e.  from her military experiences she started to drink and is now sober.

     f.  she is married and has seven children with three or four children showing signs of 
mental illness or issues with anger management. 

    g.  she receives treatment at the mental health clinic in Long Beach, California.  She 
states the staff at the clinic really want to help her.  She is glad for their help.  She is 
66 years old and badly needs help.  

     h.  she thinks of the young girl who joined the U.S. Army to serve her country, but 
had horrible experiences that have tormented her for years.  

     i.  she provides a pamphlet from the VeteransCrisisLine.net.  

23.  On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD; 
traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment.  Boards are to give liberal 
consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is 
based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences.  The guidance further 
describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions 
or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to 
the discharge.

24.  On 12 October 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency staff psychiatrist provided 
an advisory opinion.  She was asked to review the applicant’s records to determine if 
her record could reasonably support PTSD existed at the time of the applicant’s service 
and if her mental health condition could be a mitigating factor in the misconduct that 
resulted in the applicant’s discharge from the military.  She concludes the advisory by 
stating based on the available information and the 25 August 2017 Undersecretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness guidance to the BCR and DRB, she considers 
the applicant’s PTSD to be a mitigating factor for her offenses.  She found a nexus 
between the applicant’s conduct and her untreated and undiagnosed PTSD.  A copy of 
the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and 
consideration.

     a.   The psychiatrist who has access to the applicant’s VA records through the Joint 
Legacy Viewer states she has a diagnosis of PTSD from military sexual trauma and a 
history of cocaine abuse, in remission.  The applicant reported her military sexual 
trauma occurred while attending advanced individual training.  She reported to the VA 
that she had finished singing with a group of women at a social event when a sergeant 
asked to walk her back to her barracks.  At one point he began touching, hugging and 
grabbing her against her wishes.  She said, “No.”  She pushed him away at which time 
he forcefully grabbed her and raped her in or near the men’s barracks.  She did not 
report the assault.  She also reports her was verbally harassed and physically attacked 
by a group of homosexual women Soldiers during her training period.    

     b.  She reviewed the applicant’s military personnel record.  Her records shows during 
training she received mostly “Excellent” and “Good” ratings.  Her conduct and efficiency 
ratings fell after she finished training and was reassigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama.  Her 
ratings then were “Unsatisfactory.”

     c.  Her commanding officer stated after an inquiry that, in effect, there was no known 
reason why she should have gone AWOL.  

     d.  For violating the UCMJ (failure to go, AWOL and failing to obey a lawful order), 
she was court-martialed.

     e.  The applicant’s records from her military service do not document any PTSD 
symptoms.  The lack of evidence from her era of service does not mean the applicant 
did not develop PTSD while in the military.  From this era, the presence of PTSD has to 
be inferred from behavioral indicators.

     f.  From behavioral indicators, there was a substantial deterioration in her military 
performance after she was sexually assaulted.  She states, “This decline in 
performance is typical of the type of behavioral changes seen in Soldiers who have 
developed PTSD.”

25.  On 17 October 2017, the staff of the Board sent the applicant a redacted copy of 
the medical advisory to which she responded.  She stated she prays the Board decision 
will help her get mental help for her children some of whom have behavioral health 
disorders.  She is currently receiving help at the Long Beach VA Medical Center in 
California.  She now asks for her family to receive treatment.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for 
liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  The Board considered the 
applicant’s statement, her record of service, the frequency and nature of her 
misconduct, the reason for her separation and the conclusion of the advising official.  
The Board found, based on the applicant’s statement, the VA diagnosis of PTSD due to 
MST and the conclusions of the advising official, mitigating factors for the misconduct 
that led to her separation.  The Board determined that liberal consideration applies and 
the applicant’s character of service and reason for separation should be corrected. 

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was warranted.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:X	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s 
DD Form 214 for the period of service ending 17 January 1972 to show in:
-	Item 11 c. (Reason and Authority) – “AR 635-200 Chap 5, Secretarial 
Authority”, and;
-	Item 13 a. (Character of Service) – “Honorable”. 



		 
		
	

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable


REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of 
limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  

2.  Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and 
Unsuitability), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of 
enlisted personnel for unsuitability and unfitness.  Paragraph 6 provided that an 
individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a 
discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion, including but not 
limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, or indecent acts with or assault 
on a child; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs 
or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of 
dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents 
(including failure to comply with orders, decrees, or judgments).  When separation for 
unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered 
appropriate.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted 
Administrative Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

     a.  Chapter 5, Section II (Secretarial Authority), states the separation of enlisted 
personnel for the convenience of the government is the prerogative of the Secretary of 
the Army. 

     b.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of 
misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, 
convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be 
taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that 
rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under 
other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for a 
Soldier discharged for misconduct.

	c.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the 
quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any 
other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	d.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that 
SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and 
types of separation from active duty.  SPD KFF is the current code for use directed by 
the service secretary under the provisions of Army Regulation, Chapter 5, Section Il

5.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established 
standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  This regulation 
stated the purpose of the separation document was to provide the individual with 
documentary evidence of his or her military service at the time of release from active 
duty, retirement, or discharge.  It is important that information entered on the form is 
complete and accurate and reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of 
separation.  The instructions stated to use the DA Form 20 and orders to verify the 
entries on the DD Form 214.

6.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  

	a.  Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof.  It states, in pertinent 
part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.  

	b.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the 
evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  




ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170006443

8

1