AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD H EARING RECORD
AM E OF SERVJCE i\'IEMBER (LAST, FIRST M IDDLE INITIAL)	-	GRADE
(b) (6)

TYPE GEN	I	PERSONAL    APPEARANCE	x	I	RECORD    REVIEW
COUNS£L	NMlt:OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGAS17..ATION	ADDRESSAND OR ORGAN l 7J\ TION OF COUl'(SEL
YES	No
x
VOTE OF THE BOARD
MEMBER SITIING	HON	GEN	UOTl lC'	OTHER	DENY
(b) (6)	x

x
x x x
ISSUES	A94.0S	INDEX NUMBER	A67. 10	EXlll BITS SUBMITrED TO Tiit: BOAIW
1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REV IEW OF DISCHARGE
3  LEITER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BR IEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOAR D
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAi.APPEA  RANCE
TAPE RECORD ING OF PERSONAL APPEARANC'E HEA RING

llEA RINC DATE	CASE NUMBER

14 Apr 20 15	FD-2014-00786
APPUCA1''1 s ISSUEANDTll E DOARD'S orCISIO'lAl.RATION ALF ARE DISCl'SSEO ON THE AlTACHEO AIR FORCE OlSCllAAGEREVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlO'.IALE.

Case heard in Wa shington , D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board , the right to a persona l appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

(b) (6)

-

I	1NOORSF:MENT	DATE:  5/15/2015
TO:	FROM:
SAF/MRBR	SECRETA R' Of Tit t:AlR rORCt: PtRSONNEl. C'OUNCII...

sun

AIR FORCE OISCllARGE REVIEW BOA RO
550 ('STREET WEST,	E -10	1535 COMMAN D l)R, t:E \\ ING. J RO 1-·LOOR
RAN DOLPH AFB. TX 78150-4742	1\Nl>R EWS Af B.MO 21762 -7001

A FHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE !'\UMBER

FD-2014-00786	

GENERAL:  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (ORB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING : The Board grants the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE: The appl icant received a General discharge for M iscond uct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions

The Air Force Discha rge Review Board, under i ts responsibi l i ty to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affa irs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to ensure the discharge met the perti nent standards of  equity  and propriety. The applicant's record of service incl uded one Article 1 5 for refusi ng to  receive  the anthrax vacci nation.

The applicant contends that his discharge is inequi table because it does not reflect the quality of his service nor the honor in which he severed; it was based on a controversial, isolated incident regard ing his refusa l to take the anthrax vacci ne.  After a thorough review of the records and the in formation supplied by the applicant, the DRB determined there is sufficient evidence to support his claim of inequi ty. The Federal District Court
found that the Food  and Drug Administration  (FDA) fai led to comply with public notice and comment procedures  i n classifyi ng the anthrax vaccine as a Category I drug.  On October 27, 2004, the court issued a permanent  injunction  preventing DoD from administeri ng the anthrax vacci nation to mili tary mem bers without their consen t u nti l the FDA properl y classified i t as a safe and effective drug for i ts intended use.  Although,  the Board  does not condone appli cant 's misconduct, the Board  finds sufficient evidence to consider h is discharge harsh.   As such, the Board  grants upgrade of the discharge  to  Honorable.

CONCLUS ION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substanti ve requi rements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrati ve due process.

However, in view of the foregoi ng find ings, the Board concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accuratel y reflected by an Honorable discharge under the provisions of Title I 0, USC 1553.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief