IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:  20 September 2022

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220002393


APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous request to have her under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable and a personal 
appearance before the Board.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Medical Records
*	Master of Science in Nursing Degree Certificate

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number on 4 
April 2017.

2. As a new argument, the applicant states:

     a.  She requested to get out of the military due to mistreatment she received from 
her superiors. She was a young black female, and was treated unfairly on several 
occasions. The Army is not the same as it was back in 1988 when she joined. The first 
thing was the job she was placed in, wheel vehicle repairer. She was young and 
listened to her recruiter who misled her into thinking she really wasn’t going to be doing 
that job. Had she been given the appropriate information; she would have definitely 
gone a different route.

	b.  Second, she was sexually assaulted by one of her drill sergeants over and over 
while she was in Advanced Individual Training (AIT). She never reported it due to the 
fact she was afraid and young and did not know the porper channels to follow. If her 
medical records are reviewed, it will show how many times she went to see the doctor 
due to vaginal issues. The third incident was she informed her drill sergeant when she 
was in AIT that she wanted to attend Airborne school. He told her that she didn't want to 
do that, because it's not for her. Once she got to her duty station, she was mentally 
broken. She was sent to see the chaplain on several occasions, while talking to him she 
realize that she needed to ask to be released.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1988, for 4 years. 
Following completion of required training she was awarded military occupational 
specialty 63W (Wheeled Vehicle Repairer).

4.  The applicant served in Germany from 30 August 1988 to 11 July 1989.

5.  The applicant received adverse counseling on 29 November 1988 for disobeying the 
directive of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and being insubordinate to an NCO; the 
applicant stated Sergeant touched her telling her to take her hands out of her pocket 
and was out of uniform himself. She was also counseled on numerous occasions 
between 31 January 1989 and 2 May 1989, for monthly counseling, college courses 
after hours, working hard, job performance, her attitude towards the job, failure to report 
for mandatory formation, and not being present for physical training formation.

6.  The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following dates for the indicated 
offenses:

*	10 April 1989, for failure to lock the Rivers Compound gate, on or about 6 April 
1989; her punishment consisted of extra duty and daily security checks
*	5 May 1989, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her 
appointed place of duty, on or about 28 April 1989; her punishment consisted of 
reduction to the grade of private/E-1, forfeiture of seven days pay not to exceed 
$163.00, extra duty and restriction for 14 days 

7.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 May 1989, shows 
the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings 
and no evidence of mental incapacity. 

8.  The applicant's immediate commander notified her on 30 May 1989 of his intent to 
initiate separation actions against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for acts or patterns of 
misconduct. The commander noted the following reasons: she had received NJP for 
failure to repair, had a history of being late or missing formations completely, her 
attitude towards her chain of command was one of disrespect, and she had shown a 
pattern of misconduct through her actions.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 31 May 1989. She was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated action to separate her and of the rights available to her. She 
elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. She understood that she might 
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under 
honorable conditions was issued to her.

10.  The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, on 19 May 1989. 
The separation authority approved the recommended discharge on 9 June 1989, he 
waived rehabilitation and directed that she be discharged with a General Discharge.

11.  The applicant was discharged on 12 July 1989. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct – 
pattern of misconduct. Her service was characterized as under honorable conditions 
(general). She completed 1 year, 5 months, and 23 days of active service. It also shows 
she was awarded or authorized: the Army Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and Sharpshooter Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar.

12.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of her discharge. The ADRB considered her request on 18 September 1990, 
determined she was properly and equitably discharged, and denied her petition for 
relief.

13.  On 6 April 2017, the ABCMR denied her request for upgrade of her under 
honorable conditions (general) discharge. The evidence presented did not demonstrate 
the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the 
overall merits of this case were insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the 
individual concerned.

14.  On 24 May 2022, by letter, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command 
(USACID) advised regarding a request for a sanitized copy of information from CID, that 
a search of the Army criminal file indexes utilizing the information provided revealed no 
Military Sexual Assault/Trauma records pertaining to the applicant. The records at their 
center are Criminal Investigative and Military Police Reports and are indexed by 
personal identifiers such as names, social security numbers, dates and places of birth 
and other pertinent data to enable the positive identification of individuals.

15.  The applicant provides portions of her medical records and a copy of her Master of 
Science in Nursing Degree certificate.

16.  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.
17.  By regulation (AR 15-185), the ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or 
request additional evidence or opinions. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing 
before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever 
justice requires.

18.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

Applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a discharge upgrade asserting military 
sexual trauma (MST). The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health 
(BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s 
completed DD Form 149 and supporting documents, her ABCMR Record of 
Proceedings (ROP), and her separation military documentation.

    a.  Due to the period of service, no active duty electronic medical records (AHLTA) 
were available for review. Applicant underwent a Chapter 14 Mental Status Evaluation 
on 15 May 1989 that cited “no evidence of mental incapacity” and cleared applicant for 
separation. Applicant submitted hand written medical records from the time of service 
that revealed a history of gynecological care, but contained no BH diagnoses. In her 
application, Ms. Fleeton reports that she was sexually assaulted multiple times by a Drill 
Sergeant during AIT. 
	b.  Applicant is not service connected and there are no VA electronic medical 
records (JLV) available for review.
    c.  After review of all available information, applicant reports a history of MST during 
AIT. Under Liberal Consideration, applicant’s report of MST alone establishes 
mitigation. Given the nexus between being the victim of sexual trauma, avoidance, and 
difficulty with authority, there was likely an association between applicant’s experience 
of MST and the FTRs, missing formations, and disrespect that led to her separation. It is 
recommended that her discharge be upgraded and the narrative reason be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority”.
    d.  Kurta Questions

		(1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate 
the discharge? (a) Yes. MST.

		(2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? (a) Yes. 
Applicant reports MST during military service.

		(3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
(a) Yes. Given the nexus between being the victim of sexual trauma, avoidance, and 
difficulty with authority, there was likely an association between applicant’s experience 
of MST and the FTRs, missing formations, and disrespect that led to her separation. It is 
recommended that her discharge be upgraded and the narrative reason be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority”.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. 
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.

2.  The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the 
applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct 
and the reason for separation. The applicant was discharged from active duty due to 
misconduct, pattern of misconduct. The Board considered the medical records, any VA 
documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising 
official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding the applicant’s 
report of MST alone establishes mitigation. Given the nexus between being the victim of 
sexual trauma, avoidance, and difficulty with authority, there was likely an association 
between applicant’s experience of MST and the FTRs, missing formations, and 
disrespect that led to her separation. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board 
determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not 
in error but was unjust and voted to upgrade her character of service to fully honorable 
and the narrative reason be changed to “Secretarial Authority.


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 amendment of the 
ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20150016676 on 4 April 2017.  As a result, the 
Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned 
be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 July 
1989 showing the character of service as Honorable and the authority for separation as 
Secretarial Authority with corresponding Separation and Reentry Codes. 

		  
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.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the 
time provided that:

	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 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating 
members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a 
pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, 
desertion, or absences without leave. Action would be taken to separate a member for 
misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was 
unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally 
considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a general 
discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record.

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.  

     a.  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.  

     b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence 
or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right 
to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing 
whenever justice requires.

3.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and 
Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 
2014 [Hagel Memorandum], 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 (UOTHC) 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.

4.  The Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 
2016 [Carson Memorandum]. The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the 
statute of limitations. Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a 
Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit.  
Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit 
of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de 
novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance.

5.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta 
Memorandum]. The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to 
veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole 
or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic 
brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Standards for review should 
rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each veteran a reasonable 
opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 
the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later. Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part on 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.

	a.  Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but 
rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the 
narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable 
characterizations.

	b.  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.

	c.  Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade. Relief may be appropriate, 
however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, 
including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual 
harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the 
facts and circumstances.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to 
Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], 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 court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a 
sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes 
in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  

	a.  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, Boards 
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.  

	b.  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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20220002393


1

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1