=R	--1

AlR FORCE DISCHARGE RF'.VIEW BOARD HEAIUNG RECORD	 	
( E oF sERVln:MEfll•:R (Lili, Fll!ST M!DJJLF .INITiAL. )---	. I.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE	 	
=,,+,;_•"':;M;;;E;;"o'lr"r.011N t:.L AND OR nRCA. 1z.\ttm<

Mt:;MBERS  SITTING

I x RECORD REVIEW

I

ADPRW ANn o• orrc.%iz:.T1cm,,,·,.oW:.SEL

JSSCKS""·
A94.il!I

I l'NDF.XN1lMtstR
A70.UO
I

CAfJtNUM:Bf.R
FD2002-02! 4

:	i	'
"" ,,,, ,	.:1xnre.Jis.	TIEQ m, ·	·..   · ...: '''':':··:
]	ORDER APf>OlNTIN<J.TllE HOARD
2	APPi .!CATION FOR. R!'\1EW Ol' DJSCH,\RGE	,
[3	LETTf'R <if !\OTIFICATJON ··-	.
---- --1.-4-1B-RIEF OF PERONNEL FILE
,	COUNSiL'S RELEASE 'J"O THE nOAIUl

LI

I:	: Af}J)J'rl li'.'AL EXHIBiT?1 i:l1MITTEDAT 1·1 M:nF	I
PEllllDNAL AI•f'EA!t:\NCF.
,	1· Ti\PE RECORDTN'a·01· PRSONA: .·,\f>Pr·:\ANC£ HEART t.--1

•ntA	f: . !ilY/Wi  a-·	"".'"\W )¥n"'"''l\lx'."JW>J iif:•"v'' r	l§ji,)"11' \'t	· ·······•.•r:z.'' •.,:.:}
Case beard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the d""ision of the Board, the right to a personal lll)(le>trance with/without  counsel, and the right to
submit an ap1•lication to the AFBCMR.

550 C STREt'.T \VEST, Sl.JiTE 40	i
R ANDO!.PH AFB. TX 78150-4742
L__	,_	'  .	---	J  	_
AFHQ FORM 0-2077,JAN 00	(EF-V2)

SECRETAR Y OF THE AIR f'OJ<CE PERSONN EL COUNCIL ' ._:;;Jj
AIR FORCE D<SCHAROE R h VIEW BOARD
J   3.'.i COMT\1AND DR. EE WlNG, 3;u; fL00!-{
AN llREWS AFH, MD 20762-71!02	...
Previous edition will be used.

A.I R FORCE DISCH ARGE REVIEW BOARD D.ECI SIONAL RATIONA L!£	

FDOZ-0214	

GEN ERAL  The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRR) but declined to exercise this right.

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

FTN DlNGS: Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity
or impropriety, which would ju stify a change of discharge. The applicant's issues arc listed in the attached brief
ISSUE The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in that it was based on one isolatcd incident in 6years and 11 months of service with no other adverse actions.  The applicant also states t hat he was given a UOTHC discharge based solely on the fact that he would not take a vaccine that was not FVA approved for the purpose it was being given. The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to obey a lawful command (twice) to be inoculated with the anthrax vaccine. The vaccine and DoD's use of the vaccine has FDA approvaL The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of atl military members. The Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequily in this case on which to base an u pgrade of discharge. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSIONS;  The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substanti ve requirements of the discharge regu lation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided  foll administrative due process.

However, in view of the foregoing findings the Board also concludes that the overall quality of the applicant's service is more accurately reflected by a General discharge. Therefore, the applicant 's characterization for discharge should be changed to General.

Attachment: Examiner's Drief