AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD HEARING  RECORD

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

.	.

GRADE	AFSN/SSAN

.

.--------------

-- - - ---	AB
TYPE  GEN	x	PERSONAL  APPEARANCE

..- - - - - - - - - - - - -·
RECORD REVIEW

NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSf.L

x

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

HON

GEN

UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

x

x x x
.	x
-------------------------------

ISSUES

A92.21 A93.01 A94.05

INDEX NUMllER

A67. 10

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4	BRJEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDIT ONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME Of PERSONAL APPEARANCE

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HE

HEARING DA TE	CASE NUMBER

12 Jun 2007	FD-2006-00172

Case heard in Washington, D.C. via video teleconference with Robins A FB, GA

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the appl icant's request.

-..------- --- -./.'J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _]

_..z	1

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

SECRETARY OF THF. AIR FORCE PERSONN:1. COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD 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-2006-00172	

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

The applicant appeared and testified before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) without counsel, via video teleconference between Andrews AFB, MD  and Robins AFB, GA on 12 Jun 2007. Observing the DRB hearing was Ms.r_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- the applicant's wife.

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.

Issue 1. The applicant's implicit contention is that his discharge was inequitable because it did not take into account the fact that the initial mandatory Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) was followed by an intervening period of time in which it was purely voluntary, or words to that effect. The record indicates that the applicant received an Article 15 and one Memorandum for Record for twice failing to obey a lawful order to receive an Anthrax vaccination. It is important to note that at the time of the applicant's refusal to comply (October 1999) the AVIP was a mandatory program for individuals within his organization. The DRB found the member's refusal particularly unusual in the context of his testimony that he had previously received an initial Anthrax vaccine that resulted in a non-systemic reaction ("painful lump"); a recognized reaction which did not result in nor require referral for further medical analysis. In the applicant's response to the Article 15, however, he cited the death of his father due to "four different types of cancer" reportedly due to exposure to Agent Orange, and his "refusal to let [his] son grow up without a father if it could be prevented" by avoidance of the Anthrax vaccine. The applicant's response also included a statement of the "several occasions [in which he believes] the U.S. Government hasn't' taken responsibility for any action imposed upon its members." The applicant also testified that prior to deciding against taking the Anthrax vaccine, he had consulted with his mother and immediate supervisor; the former supporting the applicant's refusal and the latter encouraging him to comply. 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. The Board acknowledged the applicant's concerns, but concluded the applicant's misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.

Issue 2.  The DRB acknowledged the member's exceptional post-service employment and the significant contributions he has made as a civilian contract employee during combat operations in Iraq.   The DRB was also pleased to hear that the current characterization of the applicant's service has not adversel y affected his employability.  Further, given the opportunity to serve again, the applicant testified that he would now comply with his required Anthrax vaccine, citing among reasons his current age, experience, and the length of time that has transpired since the initial concerns regarding the safety of the vaccine were raised.
However, the Board again found no evidence of an inequity or impropriety in the course of the hearing.

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 there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief