IN THE CASE OF:

		BOARD DATE: 24 May 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220009794


APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions 
discharge to an honorable discharge and a change to the narrative reason to a more 
favorable designation.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 18 July 2022
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States), 18 July 2022
*	Self-authored Statement, undated
*	14 pages of military service records, 1983-1986
*	10 pages of service medical records, 1983-1986
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), 12 May 
1986
*	Veterans Administration (VA) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 
Questionnaire, 1 June 2022
*	Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaires (2), 1 June 2022

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) 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 provided a detailed five page narrative which reads, in part:

	a.  She was adopted and raised under difficult circumstances and later enlisted in 
the Army after she earned her General Education Development Certificate. She went to 
basic training and struggled because she was underweight. She gained 5 pounds in 
order to get a waiver on her weight and strength related tasks were always very difficult 
for her. She completed basic combat training and was sent to advanced individual 
training (AIT) to become a cook.

   b.  While she was in AIT, a drill sergeant who spoke with a thick accent always 
picked on her. He used to threaten to send her back to "Compton" if she did not perform 
well. One afternoon after physical training, he pulled her aside and said that she was 
working hard and wanted to help her. She asked him how he could help. He told her to 
meet him by the bus stop and he would pick her up. They went to his apartment and he 
assaulted her. This went on until she graduated from AIT.

	c.  She was struggling with her sexual orientation and these encounters with men 
were a horrible impact on her. She was mentored by her shift noncommissioned officer 
(NCO) who was a female Soldier, who helped her become a good cook. She described 
her relationships with female Soldiers.

	d.  While she was at Fort Campbell, she was at her first sergeant's (1SG) home for a 
barbeque and drinks with other Soldiers. She fell asleep on the couch and later woke up 
to find the 1SG removing her clothes. He threw her on the floor and raped her. She hit 
him with a fireplace fork and fled. She was afraid to call the military police. Her mentor 
came and got her and she returned to the barracks.

	e.  She shortly thereafter received orders to Germany. Before changing station to 
Germany, she went home and her mother and grandmother noticed a change in her. 
She was ashamed of what happened to her. She had bite marks on her chest and did 
not want her mother to see them. She self-esteem was not so good. She felt dirty about 
her body.

   f.  In Germany she would drink to keep from having flashbacks of what happened to 
her at Fort Campbell. She was written up a few times for missing her shift. She never 
did drugs.

	g.  She was close to finishing her tour when received nonjudicial punishment for a 
threat. She had not been in any trouble, and she was losing all her benefits. She still 
feels ashamed of being put out and believes it was unfair.

	h.  She eventually found employment with an engineering firm working in the 
mailroom. She stayed there and worked her way up to records management.

3.  The applicant provides the following documentation:

	a.  Military and medical service records, containing her separation package, her 
DD Form 214, which shows she was treated, in part, for pelvic pain.

	b.  VA progress notes, 2 February 2022 showing treatment for PTSD, depression 
and anxiety. 

   c.  A VA PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire, and two Medical Opinion Disability 
Benefits Questionnaires. These documents show her service-connected benefits for 
PTSD.

4.  A review of the applicant's service records shows:

	a.  On 17 November 1983, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years 
at age 18. She completed Basic Combat Training at Fort Jackson and she completed 
Advanced Individual Training at Fort Campbell and she was awarded military 
occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist). She attained the grade/pay grade 
private first class/E-3.

	b.  On 16 June 1985, she was ordered to Germany and assigned to Headquarters 
and Headquarters Company,165th Military Intelligence Battalion.

	c.  On 15 October 1985, she underwent gave a report of medical history in which 
reported said she was in good health and was taking no medication. She indicated 
problems with her thyroid, ear, noses and throat trouble, pain or pressure in her chest, 
heart trouble, and changes in her menstrual pattern. 

	d.  On the same date she underwent a mental status evaluation (DA Form 3822-R) 
by the chief psychiatrist, Community Mental Health Services, a captain of the Medical 
Corps, as requested by her command because of initiation of Chapter 15 proceedings. 
This form was later changed to indicate the evaluation was completed due to 
Chapter 14 proceedings and dated 9 May 1986. The examiner who evaluated her found 
that she met the physical retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 
(Standards of Medical Fitness). The examiner further determined that she was mentally 
responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, and had the 
mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

	e.  On 8 November 1985, she accepted company grade NJP under the provisions of 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to repair by not going to 
her appointed place of duty at Wiesbaden Dining Facility at 0600 hours, 27 October 
1985. Her punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty for 14 days, forfeiture of 
$150.00 and an oral reprimand. She did not appeal this punishment.

	f.  On 18 December 1985, she accepted company grade NJP under the provisions of 
Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully communicating to WLW, a threat to kill her on 
18 November 1985. Her punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days, forfeiture of 
$100.00 and an oral reprimand. She did not appeal this punishment.

	g.  On 16 December 1985, her company commander counseled that he was 
recommending her separation for having received two NJPs for failure to repair and 
communicating a threat.

	h.  On 21 January 1986, her company commander, HHC, 165th Military Intelligence 
Battalion, notified her he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct and advised her of her rights. 
The specific reason for his proposed action was misconduct. He recommended she 
receive a general under honorable conditions characterization of service. She 
understood she had a right to consult with consulting attorney or obtain a civilian 
attorney at her own expense; submit statements in her own behalf; obtain copies of the 
documents that would be presented to the separation authority; or to waiver her rights.

   i.  On 23 January 1986, she acknowledged receipt of her commander's notification 
memorandum and elected her rights. She did not indicate whether or not she would 
provide statements in her own behalf. She understood that if she were separated for the 
reasons of misconduct under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14:

*	an honorable; general, under honorable conditions; or under other than 
honorable conditions discharge may be issued to her
*	she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general, 
under honorable conditions discharge were issued to her; that there was no 
automatic upgrading of this type of discharge and that if discharged she 
would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 
2 years
*	she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an under 
other than honorable conditions were issued to her
*	as the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions, she may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under 
both Federal and State laws and that she may expect to encounter 
substantial prejudice in civilian life
*	if she received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less 
than honorable, she may make application to the Army Discharge Review 
Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; 
however, an act of consideration by either board did not imply that her 
discharge will be upgraded

   j.  On 24 January 1986 and 28 January 1986, her immediate and intermediate 
commanders recommended approval of her separation under AR 635-200, 
paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, and recommended and that her service be 
characterized as general under honorable conditions.

	k.  On 2 May 1986, the separation authority (Commanding Officer, 12th Aviation 
Group (Combat) approved and ordered the applicant's discharge under provisions of 
AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct, and directed her service be 
characterized as general under honorable conditions. He further directed she not be 
transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (Individual Ready Reserve).

	l.  On 9 May 1986, she underwent a medical examination. The examining physician 
noted she was qualified for retention.

	m.  On 12 May 1986, she was discharged. Her DD Form 214 shows she was 
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, by 
reason of misconduct for minor disciplinary infractions with service characterized as 
general, under honorable conditions. She completed 2 years, 5 months, and 26 days 
with no time lost during this period. Her grade/pay grade was shown as PFC/E-3. She 
was awarded or authorized:

*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

	n.  There is no evidence indicating she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 
for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance.

6.  Based on the applicant’s contention the Army Review Boards Agency medical staff 
provided a medical review for the Board members.  

7.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review 
this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and 
accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA 
electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the 
Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) 
application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System 
(iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and 
recommendations:  
    b.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her 12 May 
1986 discharge characterized as under honorable conditions.  She states she was 
sexually assaulted/ harassed while in the Army going on to state:
My actions do not reflect the person I truly was/am, but a reflection of an abused 
and scared person afraid to ask for help.  I have completely changed my life, 
gotten medical care for the time I have been discharged, and am still receiving 
active mental health {treatment}.
    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the 
circumstances of the case.  Her DD 214 shows she entered the regular Army on 17 
November 1983 and was discharged on 12 May 1986 under the provisions provided 14-
12a of AR 635-200, Personnel Management – Enlisted Personnel (15 July 1985): Minor 
disciplinary infractions.
    d.  Excerpts from her self-authored letter:

“While in AIT, I had a drill Sgt., Jamaican, tall, spoke with a thick accent.  He 
seemed always pick on me, threaten to "send your ass back to Compton" if I 
didn't perform well.  One afternoon after PT, he pulled me aside, "I see you 
working {Applicant}, it's not enough. Let me help you".  I could not go home and 
let my family down so I asked him how he could help.  He told me to meet him by 
the bus stop and he would pick me up. We went to his apartment, and he 
assaulted me.  

This went on until I graduated AIT.  I’ll never forget it because he made me say "I 
like this big dick" in Jamaican.  It was he and another drill sergeant living in the 
same apartment.  He used to tell me when I was leaving, "open yo mouth and we 
will find you and kill you.  And ain't nobody gonna believe you anyway''.

    e.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 15 October 1985.  The 
provider documented a normal examination, that the applicant had the mental capacity 
to understand and participate in proceedings, was mentally responsible, and met the 
retention standards of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness.
    f.  She completed a pre-separation Report of Medical History on 15 October, 
declaring “I am in good health.”  The accompanying Report of Medical Examination 
documents a normal examination, that she was found to be without diagnoses of 
defects, and was determined fit for retention on 6 May 1986.

    g.  The applicant received an article 15 on 8 November 1985 for failure to repair.  She 
received another Article 15 on 18 December 1985:

“In that you did, at Wiesbaden, Germany, on or about 18 November 1985, 
wrongfully communicate to Wendy L. W. a threat to kill her.  This is in violation of 
Article 134, UCMJ.
    h.  On 21 January 1986, the applicant’s company commander informed her of his 
initiation of separation action paragraph 14-12b of AR 635-200.  “The reasons form my 
proposed action are: Misconduct.”
    i.  Her discharge was approved by the brigade commander on 2 May 1986 with the 
directive she receive an under honorable conditions characterization of service.
    j.  His request for her administrative separation was approved by the commanding 
general of the US Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon on 19 June 1975.
    k.  VA medical documentation submitted with the application shows she was granted 
a VA service-connected disability rating for PTSD on 16 November 2021.  JLV shows 
she started to receive care at the VA in 2021.  From a 5 January 2022 behavioral health 
consult:
“Ms. Washington reports onset of symptoms occurred in adolescence.  She 
reports that she witnessed and experienced several incidences of extreme 
violence as a member of a gang.  She reports that joined the Army at age 17 
years old and briefly experienced a sense of safety, until her drill Sgt coerced her 
into having sex in exchange for passing her PT test. She reports that she was 
discharged UHC due partially to her sexual orientation as lesbian.
Kurta Questions:
1.	Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the 
discharge?

YES: PTSD exacerbated by Military Sexual Trauma
2.	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?

YES
3.	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?
Partially:  While PTSD’s association with avoidant behaviors fully mitigates her 
failure to repair, PTSD does not affect one’s ability to differentiate right from 
wrong and adhere to the right, so it does not mitigate her violation of Article 134 
of the UCMJ.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found 
within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board 
carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support 
of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy 
and regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency 
determinations requests for upgrade of her characterization of service.  Upon review of 
the applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Board 
concurred with the advising official finding that PTSD’s association with avoidant 
behaviors fully mitigates her failure to repair, PTSD does not affect one’s ability to 
differentiate right from wrong and adhere to the right, so it does not mitigate her 
misconduct.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome 
the misconduct. The Board applauds the applicant post service accomplishments since 
her discharge.

2.  However, the applicant was discharged for misconduct and was provided an under 
honorable conditions (General) characterization of service.  The Board agreed that the 
applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as she did not meet the standards of 
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an 
Honorable discharge. The Board found upgrade of the applicant’s discharge is not 
warranted and denied relief. 


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

X	X	X	DENY APPLICATION

?
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.


	
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.


REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the 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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  
The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of 
administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. 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.

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

	a.  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.

     b.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of 
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action 
will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that 
rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than 
honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this 
chapter.

4.  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 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.

5.  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; TBI; 
sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed 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 that misconduct which led to the 
discharge.

6.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate 
relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their 
equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, 
injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 
external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, 
mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a 
relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the 
narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely 
on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, 
retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that 
might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or 
had the upgraded service characterization.

7.  Title 10 U.S.C., § 1556, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an 
applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be 
provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries 
of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that 
directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized 
by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian 
and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal 
agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA 
Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to 


Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to 
adjudication.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220009794


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1