AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AMN
X	RECORD REVIEW

AFSN/SSAN

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL

MEMBER S.ITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC	OTHER

DENY

x x x
x

ISSUES	A94.55

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
ADDITlONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITIED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARL"llG DATE	CASE NUMBER

07 Jul 2009	FD-2008-00207

Case heard in 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.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request. X = Upgrade, Reason for Discharge and Reenlistment  Code

TO:

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

FROM:

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762·7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2008-00207	

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

(NPA) 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  and  change  of  reason  and  authority  for  discharge,  and  change  of reenlistment code are 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:

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because she would not have received the discharge "under current standards." The records indicated that the applicant received two Article 15s for violating lawful commands by her superior commissioned officer, to receive the Anthrax vaccination.  She was subsequently discharged with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) for Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  In response to the Article 15, the applicant contended that she chose not to take the anthrax vaccine because of side effects that she experienced.  She stated that her arm was painful, she had edema and she had no feeling in her left arm or fingers for a week and a half after the vaccine.  The applicant did not submit medical documentation to substantiate her medical condition.  As part of her upgrade request, she submitted the Court Order in Doe v Rumsfeld, wherein the Court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Department of Defense from inoculating service members without their consent.

The anthrax vaccine program is based on a military readiness obligation and unfounded health concerns do not excuse a military member from obedience.  At the time the applicant served in the Air Force, the Anthrax vaccination was mandatory, and thus the applicant was required to comply with the lawful order directed by her superior commissioned officer.  The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions she made in her Air Force career.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

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