AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

'-.'

'	' NAME OF·SERVICE  MEMBER  (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
1 1 1• 1111 11 I JI I ••,	•,I

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

AB

TYPE GEN

No
x

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZA TJON OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING
r ·---------------------------------------
'
'

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x
x
x

:-----·	--+	+--	-t-	t--	-1-	1
'	x

·

' ----------------------------------------- '	x

ISSUES

A94.ll A92.35 A92.37

INDEX NUMBER

A67.90

1	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION  FOR  REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
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

30 Jul 2004

FD-2003-00521

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 .

'	--

.-..................	...._ } _. Ll .../.A ff	.,_ ..............................................

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE  PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 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

FD-2003-00521	

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

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) 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 the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUES: Applicant was discharged for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15, both for disobeying a direct order to report to the immunization clinic to receive his anthrax vaccinations after deploying to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for an extended temporary duty assignment. At the time member departed for the deployment, the anthrax vaccination program was on hold; it resumed while he was in the UAE. Applicant now states his discharge was too harsh because the reasons for his refusal to take the vaccine were not sufficiently addressed. The Board noted that both medical staff and legal staff in the deployed location counseled member about the anthrax vaccine program; he was advised of its affects and given educational information. However, applicant further contends that the information he received was inadequate, failing to address his concerns, but rather threatening him with the disciplinary consequences of failing to take the shot. The Board could not verify the content of the deployed location's anthrax education program, but noted that member's thoughts about the anthrax vaccine program were based on essentially personal opinion garnered from internet research regarding an alleged unacceptable health risk. 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. 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. Therefore the Board concluded applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members and the Board finds the discharge proper.  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