RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00445
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 August 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be credited a full year of reserve pay and points.

2.  He be given a permanent waiver for any  and  all  further  Anthrax
vaccinations.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully suspended from participating for points or pay  with
the 326th AS  on  27  October  2004.   The  squadron  was  seeking  an
administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions.  On 29
and 30 September 2005, the Administrative  Discharge  Board  convened,
deliberated, and announced their findings.  The squadron was unwilling
to  find   alternate,   viable   solutions   to   accomplish   mission
requirements.  He did not wrongfully attempt to fly with the 709th  AS
while unqualified for such duty.  He was to be  retained  in  the  Air
Force Reserve and be reassigned to another flying wing.

Shortly after having his wings reinstated  from  the  previous  year’s
suspension, the Anthrax program was in effect.   Due  to  questionable
circumstances with the validity of  the  vaccination,  in  combination
with previous issues of an illegal substance known as  squalene  being
found in a few of the Lots that were tested by the  FDA,  he  had  the
liberty of having his blood tested  for  Squalena  Antibodies  by  the
Medical school at Tulane University.  He had tested  positive.   After
confronting his squadron commander about the issue, it was ignored and
he was ordered to take the next shot in the series.  Being advised not
to take another shot by Dr. P--- A---, whom had initiated the test and
warned him of the serious health  risks,  he  elected  to  discontinue
participation on 21 July 2004.  This led to a  suspension  in  October
2004 for the purposes of an Administrative Discharge  Board  that  had
elected on 30 September 2005 to retain him and transfer him to another
flying wing.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  numerous  documents
pertaining to the case.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air  Force  Reserve  in  the
grade of captain.  The relevant facts pertaining to this  application,
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in  the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1B states, it is their determination that the  applicant  should
not  receive  pay  and  points  for  FY05.    Applicant   was   denied
participation based on applicable guidance pertained in AFMAN 36-8001,
Table 1.2, note 3 “A commander/program manager has  the  authority  to
excuse or deny  a  member  to  take  part  in  pay  or  point  gaining
activities  if  the  member  is  being   processed   for   involuntary
reassignment…or if the  member  is  being  processed  for  involuntary
separation action according to AFI 36-3209.  Applicant  wanted  to  be
reaffirmed that there is no UIF existing in his record,  the  Military
Personnel Data System does not reflect a UIF code and according to the
MPF, Career Enhancement Section at Dover AFB, there is no existing UIF
on the applicant.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence
submitted (limited to  a  report  of  anti-squalene  antibody  without
report of serious adverse effects after four immunizations)  does  not
support the applicant’s request  for  a  medical  exemption  from  the
anthrax vaccination.  While it is unknown for certain whether  or  not
the applicant received a vaccination with anthrax  vaccine  containing
any squalene, the fact that the applicant has been shown to have anti-
squalene antibodies does not prove that those antibodies developed  in
response to the anthrax vaccination.  Although the applicant  has  not
exhausted his appeal avenues for medical exemption  from  the  anthrax
vaccine adsorbed (AVA),  it  is  unlikely  medical  authorities  would
approve  an  exemption  based  solely  on  the  reported  presence  of
antibodies  to  squalene.   Mechanisms  exist  for  the  applicant  to
directly contact the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network through  their
website (http://vhcinfo.org/index.htm) to have his concerns addressed.
 Action  and  disposition  in  this  care  are  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the
law.

A copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to AFRC’s advisory opinion stating  he  is  in
complete disagreement with their recommendations.  He  was  wrongfully
suspended by a squadron commander who was found to have been unwilling
to find alternate viable solutions to accomplish mission requirements.
 He was wrongfully charged with fraud on  an  Article  15,  found  not
guilty, and then forced through  an  Administrative  Discharge  Board.
This is not professional military officership.   He  wasn’t  suspended
for participation for points alone, but pay also; therefore, he  feels
that reparations are in order.  He volunteered 230 days in  2001-2002,
and 184 days in 2002-2003,  This is an average of 207 days  per  year.
He knows that if they were not activated for Operation Iraqi  Freedom,
that he would have performed an average of 200 days of service for his
country per year as a reservist.  This  is  a  legitimate  request  of
points and pay for relief sought, even though the modest  14  days  of
annual tour (AT) and 96 days  of  inactive  duty  (IDT)  were  in  the
official request.

A copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

On 1 March 2007, a copy of a congressional inquiry was  received  from
applicant’s senator’s office.

A copy of the congressional inquiry is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  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
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 22 March 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1B, dated 7 Jul 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Feb 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 31 Jul 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Letter w/Congressional Inquiry, dated 23 Feb 07.




                             MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                             Panel Chair