RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00404
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her service does not deserve to be characterized as General.  At the time of her discharge, no one could answer her questions regarding the safety of the anthrax vaccination.  She was a single mother and was worried about who would take care of her daughter should she become sick from the vaccine.  The applicant also makes a point that there have been others who have refused to take the shot and still received an honorable discharge.  Applicant attached copies of her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) to verify the quality of her service and a copy of a memo done by two reserve legal officers that questions the legality of orders to take the anthrax vaccination.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Procedures Manager, AFPC/DPPRSP evaluated this application and addressed the issue of the applicant’s characterization of service.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge she received.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, evaluated this application and recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.

The applicant does not dispute the fact that she refused to obey the orders of her commander on two occasions.  She also does not contest the fact that she was discharged because of her failure to obey the orders.  She admits the facts of the case, but contends that the characterization of the discharge should be “honorable” instead of “general.”  She feels that her service “deserves an Honorable characterization.”  She explains that the reason she disobeyed the orders was because she was worried that the anthrax vaccination would make her sick, and no one could satisfactorily answer her questions concerning the safety of the vaccine.  Her narrative does not contest the legality of the order, but she did submit with her application an unsigned memorandum that calls into question the legality of orders concerning the anthrax vaccine.

AFPC/JA states that the anthrax vaccination policy has been a divisive issue in the military with a number of members refusing to be inoculated.  Although many of these individuals demonstrated a sincere personal belief that the vaccine was a health concern, they faced either administrative discharge or trial by court-martial.  AFPC/JAG provides the elements required for an order to be considered legal and concludes that it was the duty of the applicant to obey the lawful orders she received concerning anthrax vaccinations.  

In regards to the memorandum questioning the legality of the vaccinations submitted by the applicant, AFPC/JAG states that a 5 May 2000 opinion by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force concludes that the vaccine itself, and DoD’s use of the vaccine, has FDA approval.

AFPC/JA further points out that the service of a member discharged for misconduct under AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2 (a pattern of misconduct) should usually be characterized as “under other than honorable conditions.  In this case, the applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge was more generous than the recommended characterization.  An honorable characterization in a discharge for misconduct is proper only if the airman’s service has been so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations were mailed to the applicant on     27 Apr 01 for her review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Apr 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair