AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD,HEARING RECORD

a-••••

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

•1:: •
TYPE UOTH	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

'GJUDE

AFSN/SSAN

.AB
x	RECORD REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

YES	No
x

MEMBER SITTING
.-------------------------------------

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

'	x
x x x
x
'   ------------------------------------- '·

ISSUES

A94.12

INDEX NUMBER

A67.30

A92. 16	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

12 May 2004	FD-2004-00054

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.

-'     ------------------	--------	-,c)------ ------------------------------------------- '
.'',

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

SECRETARY OF IBE 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

FD2004-00054	

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: The discharge is upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).
The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by applicant substantiates an impropriety that would justify an upgrade of the discharge. However, based upon the record, the Board finds that the applicant's characterization of service is inequitable.

Issues. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. He had two Articles 15, both for disobeying a direct order to report to the immunization clinic to receive his fourth anthrax vaccination in a series of six. This was after having received the first three shots, and deploying to Oman for an extended temporary duty assignment on short notice. At some point, member began to experience physical symptoms that he attributed to the shots and sought medical care. He was sent to Wilford Hall Medical Center for a complete medical evaluation and was seen by a rheumatologist and allergist. All of
the medical tests and review returned with normal results, and no correlation was found between the anthrax shots and member's symptoms. Member's unit commander recommended he receive a general discharge, but the wing commander recommended he receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. This entitled member to an administrative discharge board, which found he had committed the offenses and recommended the UOTHC. 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. 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.  However, the Board further concluded the characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was too harsh in the absence of any other misconduct or derogatory information in his records, and in view of his otherwise excellent duty performance.

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.

However, in view  of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that the overall quality of applicant's service is more accurately described as general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's characterization of discharge should be changed to general (under honorable conditions) under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief