RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00404
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
Honorable.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her service does not deserve to be characterized as  General.   At  the
time of her discharge, no one could answer her questions regarding  the
safety of the anthrax vaccination.  She was a  single  mother  and  was
worried about who would take care of her  daughter  should  she  become
sick from the vaccine.  The applicant also makes  a  point  that  there
have been others who have refused to take the shot and  still  received
an honorable discharge.  Applicant  attached  copies  of  her  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) to verify the quality of her service  and  a
copy of a memo done by two reserve legal officers  that  questions  the
legality of orders to take the anthrax vaccination.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Separations  Procedures  Manager,   AFPC/DPPRSP   evaluated   this
application and addressed the issue of the applicant’s characterization
of service.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.
Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting an upgrade  of
the discharge she received.  Accordingly, they recommend denial of  the
applicant’s request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  evaluated  this  application  and
recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.

The applicant does not dispute the fact that she refused  to  obey  the
orders of her commander on two occasions.  She also  does  not  contest
the fact that she was discharged because of her  failure  to  obey  the
orders.  She admits the facts  of  the  case,  but  contends  that  the
characterization of the discharge  should  be  “honorable”  instead  of
“general.”   She  feels  that  her  service  “deserves   an   Honorable
characterization.”  She explains that  the  reason  she  disobeyed  the
orders was because she was worried that the anthrax  vaccination  would
make her sick, and no one could  satisfactorily  answer  her  questions
concerning the safety of the vaccine.  Her narrative does  not  contest
the legality of the order, but she did submit with her  application  an
unsigned memorandum that calls into question  the  legality  of  orders
concerning the anthrax vaccine.

AFPC/JA states that the anthrax vaccination policy has been a  divisive
issue in  the  military  with  a  number  of  members  refusing  to  be
inoculated.  Although many of these individuals demonstrated a  sincere
personal belief that the vaccine  was  a  health  concern,  they  faced
either administrative discharge or trial  by  court-martial.   AFPC/JAG
provides the elements required for an order to be considered legal  and
concludes that it was the duty of the  applicant  to  obey  the  lawful
orders she received concerning anthrax vaccinations.

In  regards  to  the  memorandum  questioning  the  legality   of   the
vaccinations submitted by the applicant, AFPC/JAG states that a  5  May
2000 opinion by the Judge Advocate General of the Air  Force  concludes
that the vaccine  itself,  and  DoD’s  use  of  the  vaccine,  has  FDA
approval.

AFPC/JA further points out that the service of a member discharged  for
misconduct  under  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.50.2   (a   pattern   of
misconduct) should  usually  be  characterized  as  “under  other  than
honorable conditions.  In this case,  the  applicant’s  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge was more generous than the  recommended
characterization.  An honorable characterization  in  a  discharge  for
misconduct  is  proper  only  if  the  airman’s  service  has  been  so
meritorious  that  any  other   characterization   would   be   clearly
inappropriate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations were mailed to the applicant on     27 Apr 01
for her review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not
been received.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief
sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did   not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that  the
application will only be reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Apr 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 01.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair