Back More

Great Events from History: LGBTQ, 2nd Edition

Watkins V. United States Army Reinstates Gay Soldier

by Thomas Tandy Lewis

Date: May 3, 1989

Locale: San Francisco, California

Categories: Military; laws, acts, and legal history; civil rights

Key Figures

Perry Watkins (1949-1996), U.S. Army sergeant and later drag entertainer

Harry Pregerson judge, U.S. Court of Appeals

William Norris judge, U.S. Court of Appeals

Summary of Event

When Perry Watkins, an African American, was drafted in 1967, he replied “yes” on a questionnaire that asked enlistees if they were gay or if they had same-gender sexual attractions. Despite the U.S. Army’s long-standing policy of excluding homosexuals and bisexuals, Watkins was admitted as a soldier. The next year, when he was investigated for engaging in prohibited homosexual conduct, he admitted in an affidavit that the allegations were true. The Army, nevertheless, dropped the investigation because of insufficient evidence.

In 1975, a board of officers, with full knowledge that Watkins was gay, recommended his retention. His associates testified that his sexuality had neither created problems nor interfered with his duties. In 1979, because of his earlier admission of homosexual conduct, an Army board revoked his security clearance, but later that same year the Army accepted him for another three-year enlistment. His evaluations indicated that his service had consistently been exemplary in every way.

In 1981, after the election of Ronald Reagan as U.S. president, the Army issued a new and stricter regulation mandating the discharge of all homosexuals regardless of their merit. Pursuant to this stern directive, an Army board recommended discharging Watkins, but then a district judge prohibited the discharge on the basis that it would constitute double jeopardy. The judge reasoned that the charges against Watkins in 1981 were the same as those in 1975.

Watkins v. United States Army III

Pregerson, Circuit Judge: The United States Army denied Sgt. Perry J. Watkins reenlistment solely because he is a homosexual. The Army refused to reenlist Watkins, a 14-year veteran,

even though he had been completely candid about his homosexuality from the start of his Army career, even though he is in all respects an outstanding soldier, and even though the Army, with full knowledge of his homosexuality, had repeatedly permitted him to reenlist in the past. The Army did so despite its long-standing policy that homosexuality was a nonwaivable disqualification for reenlistment.

The issue before the en banc court is whether the Army may deny reenlistment to Watkins solely because of his acknowledged homosexuality. . . .

Conclusion

This is a case where equity cries out and demands that the Army be estopped from refusing to reenlist Watkins on the basis of his homosexuality. We therefore reinstate the district court’s October 5, 1982 Order estopping the Army from relying on its reenlistment regulation as a bar to Sgt. Watkins’ reenlistment. . . .

Norris, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: I concur in the judgment requiring the Army to reconsider Sgt. Watkins’ reenlistment application without regard to his homosexuality. I cannot join the majority’s opinion, however, because I agree with the dissent that the judgment

cannot rest on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Supreme Court has declined to approve the invocation of equitable estoppel against the government even in cases where the facts are no less sympathetic than the facts in Sgt. Watkins’ case. . . .

In my view, Watkins is entitled to relief because the Army denied him the equal protection of the laws by discharging and refusing to reenlist him solely on the basis of his homosexuality.

In 1982, Watkins was refused reenlistment in the Army because “of his self-admitted homosexuality as well as homosexual acts.” Later that year, a district court admonished the Army for refusing to reenlist him. The court based its ruling on the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel, which means that the Army’s unfair conduct precluded the service from asserting a right that it otherwise would have had (illustrating the maxim, “he who seeks equity, must do equity”). When appealed in Watkins v. United States Army I (1983), however, a panel of the court of appeals overruled the district court’s injunction. The case was then remanded to the district court, which ruled explicitly that the Army regulations did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The new ruling allowed for another appeal. In Watkins v. United States Army II (1988), a panel of the court of appeals reversed the ruling and held that the Army’s reenlistment regulations violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At the Army’s request, the court of appeals agreed to grant a full court review of the issues of the case. The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Psychological Association submitted friend-of-the-court briefs, which argued in favor of upholding the panel’s ruling of 1988.

In Watkins v. United States Army III (1989), the majority of the justices ignored the 1988 ruling and upheld the 1982 judgment of the district court, which equitably estopped (barred) the Army from refusing to enlist Watkins. Speaking for the majority, Judge Harry Pregerson declared that the Army’s unfairness in the matter constituted “affirmative misconduct.” During the fourteen years of Watkins’s career, Pregerson argued, the Army had given Watkins incorrect information about his right to reenlist in eight administrative reviews. After having overlooked the reenlistment regulations so often, “equity cries out and demands” that the Army be stopped from barring Watkins from continuing his career. Four judges dissented from the ruling and voted in favor of the Army’s position.

The majority found that it was not necessary to address the constitutional question. Two concurring members of the court, however, would have preferred to decide the case on the basis of the principle of equal protection. Judge William Norris wrote an especially strong opinion, which argued that the Army’s ban on homosexuality was unconstitutional because it discriminated “against homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

President George H. W. Bush attempted to have Watkins v. United States Army III reversed, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision, which meant that it stood. As soon as Watkins was reinstated, he then retired from the Army with retroactive pay, full retirement benefits, and an honorable discharge. Watkins became a popular female impersonator under the drag name of “Simone.” He died in Tacoma, Washington, of AIDS-related complications in 1996. His life was explored in the documentary The Perry Watkins Story, which appeared in 1997.

Significance

Because Watkins v. United States Army III was based on the narrow issue of equitable estoppel, the case did not challenge the Army’s general ban on gays and lesbians, and, consequently, it did not have far-reaching affects. Judge Norris’s concurring opinion, however, based squarely on the equal protection principle, would have had great ramifications, for it would have prohibited the armed forces from promulgating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Although not binding, such opinions often influence public opinion as well as the thinking of other judges.

Even with the case’s limited impact, the story of Perry Watkins served to put a human face on the struggle of gays and lesbians wishing to be part of the U.S. armed forces. A courageous man who refused to lie about his identity, Watkins performed his duties with distinction while risking his career for the cause of promoting gay and lesbian rights in the military.

Citation Types

Type

Format

MLA 9th

Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Watkins V. United States Army Reinstates Gay Soldier." Great Events from History: LGBTQ, 2nd Edition, edited by Robert C. Evans, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=LGBTQ2E_0202.

APA 7th

Lewis, T. T. (2017). Watkins V. United States Army Reinstates Gay Soldier. In R. C. Evans (Ed.), Great Events from History: LGBTQ, 2nd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.

CMOS 17th

Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Watkins V. United States Army Reinstates Gay Soldier." Edited by Robert C. Evans. Great Events from History: LGBTQ, 2nd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed September 15, 2025. online.salempress.com.

Table of Contents