AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD HEARING  RECORD

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

GRADE
AB

AFSN/SSAN

PERSONAL  APPEARANCE	x	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

x

MEMBER SITTING

-----------------------------------

HON	GEN

UOTHC	OTHER

DENY
x x x x
x

ISSUES

A93.25

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

12 Aug 2004

FD-2004-00187

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.

)
-	1__ _/)___ J_.11/ _ _ _ _ _ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _	_

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

FD2004-00187	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for discharge.

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, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had two Articles 15 for two instances of failing to obey a direct order to report to the immunization clinic to receive his anthrax vaccination although he was scheduled for reassignment to South Korea. He had one Enlisted Performance Report during his period of service that was rated an overall "5", and a second one rated a referral "2" due to the anthrax vaccine refusals. Member also had two Letters of Counseling for failure to go and public intoxication. At the time of the discharge, applicant consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf requesting retention, or in the alternative, an honorable discharge. Applicant now contends his discharge was too harsh in the context of an otherwise honorable period of service, and also notes the reasons for his refusal to take the vaccine were based on his personal convictions. The Board noted member had attended a mass briefing regarding the anthrax vaccine program, that medical staff counseled member twice about the anthrax vaccine program and its affects, providing him educational information about its safety track record, and the written orders he received to take the vaccine were also very detailed with respect to his refusal's effect on mission accomplishment, and the vaccine's safety. The Board further noted that member's thoughts about the anthrax vaccine program were based on essentially personal opinion garnered from internet and public media 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. 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