AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

,. NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

?FW IT •PP IRT ll 712

AMN

9 Fi	PP?'

PERSONAL APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

ISSUES

A92.35

MEMBER SITTING

INDEX NUMBER	A67.30

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x x x x
x

2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFJCATION
4	BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

15 Apr 2004

FD-2003-00501

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

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

----------------	----------- ---"----''--     ---"-'----------------------------------------------------   ·'
'

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781504742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING,  lRD FWOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00

(EF-V2)

Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD2003-00501	

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

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

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

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge is denied.

The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

Issues.  Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  She had an Article 15, for disobeying a direct order to report to the immunization clinic to receive her anthrax vaccination.  At the time of the discharge, applicant apparently consulted counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf. Applicant now infers her discharge was too harsh because it was based on one isolated incident in an otherwise honorable period of service.  Unfortunately, member's discharge processing files were
unavailable to the Board for review due to being missing from the record.  Because member's discharge file was unavailable to the Board for review, the Board was unable to conclusively ascertain if there was other misconduct on member's part that formed additional bases for the discharge.  When requested to provide  any pertinent information she may have about the discharge file or her record of service, applicant failed to respond.  The Board notes that the anthrax vaccine program is based on a military readiness obligation, and personal philosophy or unfounded health concerns do not excuse a military member from obedience.  Such  a contention has no place in a military organization grounded in good order and discipline.  Personal
opinion cannot be the basis of questioning the morality or wisdom of a Department of Defense directive; all military members must obey orders given with a valid military purpose.  Lacking documented evidence from the applicant to the contrary, the Board relies on the presumption of regularity and finds the discharge proper and without basis for an upgrade.  The Board concluded applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was appropriate.  No inequity or impropriety could be found in this discharge in the course of the records review. No inequity or impropriety was found in this discharge in the course of the records review.

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that  the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief	

..