AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

 

 

 

 

NAME OF SERVICE MEMEER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE | AFSN/SSAN

AIC
PE. no . _. we he _ a a
; _ PERSONAL APPEARANCE __ ___|_X_ RECORD REVIEW

a] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS ANT OR ORGANIZATION OF COLMSEL

  

 

 

 

 
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS SITTIN(: TOTHe OTHER
Xx
X
xX
XxX
x
ISSUKE : INDFXNUMBER CTSA MITTEN 1. THe EAR
A405 A70.00 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
HEARING DATE ~ “| CASE NUMEFR - ~ $ | BRIEFOFPRRSONNELFIIE— ~
2 OCT 2 FD2002-0214 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TOTHE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUEMITTED AT TIMI: OF
PERSONAL ATPEARANCE
“FAPE RECORTING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING

 

  
 

 

 

  
 

  

 

DRE DUREEE EY

 

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to 4 personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to
submit an application to the AFRCMR.

 

 

 

SAF/MIBR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL.

450 STREET WEST, SUITE 40 ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
RANDOLPH AFB, T™ 78150-4742 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3°" FLOOR

 

 

ANDREWS AFR, MD 20762-7002
(EF-V2) - ° Previous cdition will be used.

 

AFHO FORM 0-2077, JAN 00
CASK NUMBER

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0214

GENERAL. The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRR) but declined to
exercise this right.

The attached brief contains the available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the
discharge.

FINDINGS: Upgrade of discharge to Honorable is denied.

The board finds that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity
of impropriety, which would justify a change of dischare.

The applicant's issues are listed in the attached brief,

ISSUE: The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh in that it was based
on one isolated incident in 6years and 11 months of service with no other adverse actions. The applicant
also states that he was given a UOTEIC discharge based solely on the fact that he would not take a vaccine
that was not FDA approved for the purpose it was being given. The records indicated the applicant received
an Article 15 for failure to obey a lawful command (twice) to be inoculated with the anthrax vaccine, The
vaccine and DoD’s use of the vaccine has FDA approval. The Board concluded the misconduct was a
significant departure from conduct expected of all military members. The Board found no evidence of
impropriety or inequity in this case on which to base an upgrade of discharge. The Board concluded the
misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

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,

However, in view of the foregoing findings the Board also concludes that the overall quality of the
applicant’s service ig more accurately reflected by a General discharge. Therefore, the applicant’s
characterization for discharge should be changed to General.

Attachment:
Examiner's Brief
FD2002-0214
DEPARTMENT OF THR AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD
ANDREWS AFB, MD

{Former AlC} (HGH SRA)

1. MATTER UNDER REVIEW: Appl rec’d a UOTHC Disch fr USAF 99/03/09 UP AFI 36-

3208, para 4.3 (Misconduct - Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial).
Appeals for Honorable Disch,

2. BACKGROUND:

a. DOB: 73/07/10. Enlmt Age: 18. Disch Age: 25 8/12. Educ: HS DIPL.

AFOT: N/A. A-35, E-71, G-74, M-76. PAFSC: 2A652 - Aerospace Ground Equipment
Journeyman. DAS: 96/10/17.

b. Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 91/07/10 - 92/04/16 (9 Mos 7 Days} (Inactive).

(2) Enld as AB 92/04/17 for 4 yrs. Ext: 94/08/11 for 6 Mos.
Bat: 95/11/15 for 12 Mos. Svd: 4 Yrs 3 Mos 10 Dag, all AMS. AMN - 92/10/17. Alc
~ 93/08/17. SRA - 95/04/17. EBPRs: 4,4,4.

3. SERVICE UNDER REVIEW:

a. Reenld as SRA 96/07/26 for 5 yrs. Svd: 2 Yrs 7 Mos 14 Das, all AMS.
b. Grade Status: Al1C - 98/12/22 (Article 15, 98/12/22}

c. Time host: Nore .

a. Art 15’s: {1) 98/12/22, Travis AFB, CA, Article 90. You, having
received a lawful command from --~---- , your superior

commissioned officer, then known by you to be your
superior commissioned officer, to submit to Anthrax

Immunizationa, or words to that effect, did, on or
about 11 Dec 98, fail to obey the same. Reduction to

the grade of A1C, 45 days extra duty, and a reprimand.
(Appeal denied) (No mitigation).

e. Additional: None.

fF. CM: None.

gq. Record of SV: 95/08/21 - 96/06/20 Incirlik AB 4 (Annual)
96/08/21 - 97/08/20 Travis AFB 5 (Annual)
97/07/21 - 98/08/20 Travia AFB 4 (Annual)

(Discharged from Travis AFB)

h. Awards & Deca: AFLSW, AFTR, SASM (10LC), AFOSTR, AFOUA (10LC), AFGCM.
(10LC) .
FD2002-0214

i. Stmt of Sv: TMS: (7) Yrs (8) Mos (0) Das
TAMS: (6) ¥ra (10) Mos (23) Das

4. BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW: Appln (DD Fm 293) dtd 02/04/02.
{Change Discharge to Honorable)

Issue 1: My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on
one isolated incident in 6yrs, llmos. {sic) of service with no other adverse
action.

Issue 2: I was given a UOTHC discharge based solely on the fact that I
would not take a vaccine that was not FDA approved for the purpose it was being
given.

ATCH
None.

02/08/22/cer
f°QLeed- Oat Y

DEPARTMENT OF THE’ AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS FIFTEENTH AIR FORCE (AMC}

 

MEMORANDUM FOR 15 AF/CC
FROM: 15 AF/JA

Travis AFB

SUBJECT: aotiies for Discharge i in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, U.S. v.