.......................................... 
ISSUES  A49.00 

INDEX NUMBER 

A94.56 

I 

I 

I 
EXHIBITS WB&$ITTE@TO TNE BOAW 

I 

I 

(  ORDER APPOINTMG THE BOARD 

1 
2  (  APP1,ICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
3  1  1,ETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
4 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAI, APPEARANCE 

HEARING DATE 
23 May 2006 
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AM) ME BOARD'S DECISIONAL. RATIONAL ARE DlSCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR  FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

FD-2006-00118 

CASE NUMBER 

I 

I 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR for issues beyond the 
DRB's authority. 

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

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR.  ICE WING, 3HD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 

I 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

I 

(EF-V2) 

Previous edition will  be used 

I 

I 

I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD~2006~001 18 

GENERAL:  The applicant appealed to change the reason and authority for her discharge. 

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  with  counsel,  at 
Andrews AFB, MD on 23 May 2006. 

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

FINDINGS:  The Board grants the requested relief insofar as it is within its power to do so. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  applicant  substantiates  an 
impropriety  that  would  justify  a  change  of  discharge.  However,  based  upon  the  record  and  evidence 
provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's  reason and authority for discharge inequitable. 

ISSUE: 

Issue  1.  The applicant presented the DRB with requests for relief beyond the authority of the DRB to grant. 
The DRB noted the requests for relief; however, the DRB President briefed the applicant that the Board 
could not consider the issues that concerned matters beyond its authority. 

Issue 2.  The applicant argued that her discharge was inequitable because the narrative reason for her 
discharge on her DD 214 is "Unsatisfactory  Duty Performance."  She argued that her discharge was due to 
her recruiter's  incorrect statement to her that the Air Force would accommodate her wearing of religiously 
mandated clothing along with the uniform.  Under the unique facts of this case, the DRB agreed that the 
expressed reason for discharge did not accurately reflect the facts of her case.  As an officer, the applicant 
had a duty to properly wear the uniform.  The applicant would not have become an officer if she had known 
that the Air Force would not accommodate her religious beliefs.  Because the root cause of her unsatisfactory 
duty performance appears to have been an unfortunate misunderstanding of the religious accommodation 
rules for uniform wear, the DRB concluded that it was inequitable to discharge her for unsatisfactory 
performance. 

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board  concludes that the reason for the discharge is more accurately 
described  as  Secretarial  Authority  and  her  DD  Form  214  should  be  changed  to  show  that  reason  for 
discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC  1553. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former CAPT)  (HGH CAPT) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl  rec'd a HON Disch fr USAF Maxwell AFB, AL on 27 
Sep  04 UP AFI 36-3206, para 2.3.11 (unsatisfactory Performance).  Appeals for a 
Change in Reason and ~uthority for Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 1 Apr 72.  Enlmt Age: 31 2/12.  Disch Age: 32 5/12. Educ: 

Doctorate. AFQT: N/A.  A-N/A,  E-N/A,  G-N/A,  M-N/A. PAFSC: 47GlC -  Dentist 
DAS: 8 J u ~  03. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 24 Jun 03 -  5 Jul 03  (12 days) (Inactive) . 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Appt to Capt and Ordered to EAD on 6 Jul 03. Svd: 01 Yrs 02 Mo 22 Das, 

all AMS. 

b.  Grade Status:  None. 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art  15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: None 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: None. 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  NONE. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS:  (01) Yrs  (03) Mos  (04) Das 
TAMS: (01) Yrs  (02) Mos  (22) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 18 Mar 06. 
(Change Discharge to the Reason and Authority for Discharge) 

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF. 

I .  

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _  

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

ATCH 
I. Applicant's Issues. 
2. Exhibit A: Notification to Show Cause Action. 
3 .   Exhibit B: Congressional Record. 
4. Exhibit C: Photograph. 
5. Exhibit D: Excerpts from Daily Log of Captain : I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I +  
6. Exhibit E: Multiple Character Witness Letters. 
7. Exhibit F :   Email Correspondence with Capt, Chaplain! 
..................... 
..................... 
'..-.-....-....,...-- 
8. Exhibit G: Email Correspondence between Lt: 
, - - - - - - - - - - -  
C .......... m 
9 .   Exhibit H: Memorandum -  Appeal Notification. 
10 Exhibit I: Memorandum -  Wear of Religious Apparel. 
11. Exhibit J: Memorandum for Whom It May Concern -  Religious Apparel. 
12. Exhibit K: Memorandum -  Request for Accomodation of Religious Apparel. 
13. Exhibit L: Phtograph of Hijab Worn with Air Force Blues. 
14. Exhibit M: Phtograph of Hijab Worn with Battle Dress Uniform. 
15. Exhibit Me: Abbreviated Version of Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 .  
16. Exhibit N: Director of AEGD Letter. 
17. Exhibit 0: DOD Directive 1300.17. 
18 .  Exhibit P :  Memorandum For Record, Subj ect :  Captain 1 -------------_----- !I  from Maj or 

..-.-..-.-....-....-...q 
:  and Capt 
.-....-....-.-..-.-..-.- 
---------- 
1-  - - - - - - - - 1 

1 

i  and Capt : 

..................... 

........................... 
1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : I  

42 Mission Support Commander - 

19. Exhibit Q: USAF/IG Letter. 
20. Exhibit R: Request for Change of Counsel. 
21. Exhibit S: Three Letters of Praise from Patients. 
22. Exhibit T: Oath of Office.  ------------ 
23. Exhibit U: Report of Lt Col i 
i  Case. 
24 .  Exhibit V: Telephone lntervileF-.-------' 
25. Exhibit W: Tricare Explanation of Benefits Statement. 
26. Exhibit X: Status of Waiver Memorandum. 
27. Exhibit Y: Religious Apparel Waiver Request. 
28. Exhibit Z: Talking Paper. 

Brief in support of Captain : . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a  
:Application for Review of 
Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) 

1. Enclosures to Brief 
Enclosure: (1)  Statement of Captain [::: 1:  1: 

:dated 13 Feb 2004 with exhibits A through Z 

:with  19Aug03 

Memo from @s- - - - - - - l 

(2) 16 Jun 04 reply to FOIA request from Colj 

---------- 
----------- 
--------- 
(3) 24 Sept 04 e-mail fiom Col Odom to Maj i --------- 
(4) Company Grade Officer Performance Feedback Worksheet 
(5)  1 2 Jan 04 memo for AUICC from Maj  11 1:  1:  1 

I - - - - - - - -  

2.  Summary of ~ a c t s '  
i---- 
'-.-....-.-....- 

--------- 

jis  a devout Muslim and wears a head covering (hijab) as a religious 

,.-..-.-. 

expression of her faith. In late 2002, Ms. :-- -- --- - 
I - - - - - - - -  :contacted an Air Force recruiter. Ms. 
-------- 
, - - - - - - - i was interested in the Advanced Education in , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
Dentistry (AEGD) program in the 
Air Force. Her recruiter, Technical Sergeant (TSgt); .. .-.-. .. .-. .. .-, 
: originally informed 
her that that the wearing of the hijab in an Air Force uniform was prohibited. This policy 
directly conflicted with Ms. im-----  --- 
i reliAous belief so she decided not to pursue the Air 
------ ithat she would not be interested in any Air 
Force. Ms. 1 ------- jexp1ained'6~~2--- 
Force programs if she could not wear the hijab. 
-----. 
. - - - - - - - - 
: contacted Ms.i - - - - - - -1 
--------- 

A couple of weeks later TSgt : I - - - - - a  
she could wear the hijab in uniform. Ms.: 
requirements for 
modesty and asked about covering her akiii-iiii legs as well. TSgt ; 7 5 5 s  j informed her she 
could wear the long-sleeved and pants versions of the uniform. T S a  - -----!explained he 
had consulted with a Muslim Chaplain (Air Force Officer) and discovered the military 
(Air Force) hadre~lations that allowed 
uniform. TSgt : :....I :encouraged Ms. j -------- 'to  apply for the AEGD program. 

the wearing of religious articles with the 

Fxplained her religious 

: and informed her 

------- 

, - - - - -  

- - - - - - - - , 
Ms. ; - - -- - - - - 

:applied for and was accepted in the AEGD program. Ms; - - -_ - - - -: 

I - - - - - - - - -  

chose the program over other professional opportLI$itk~jWtt were available to her 

primarily due to a desire to serve her country. Ms. ; ---.--_.---_ 
New York, New York by CaptahL -- --- -- -----  Ms. j 
her faith to include wearing the hijab during the ceremZ,iii: Mi. \ - - -- - - - - kntered into a 
contract for Advanced Education in Dentistry (AEGD) program in return for three years 
of service in the Air Force. 

:was sworn in on 24 June 03 in 
jw&dres_sed  in accord with 

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

On 6 July 2003, Captain : 

:was appointed as a probationary reseme officer. 

She was ordered to report to the Commissioned Officers Training (COT) Course 
#MOTS-002 at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. The class began on 9 
Jul03 with graduation scheduled for 7 Aug 03. Captain 1 .., -.-- :was scheduled to report to 
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida after completion of COT. 

-------- 

I - - - - - - - -  

I - - - - - - - . 

' For a detruled background of the facts consult Enclosure 1 

1 

, - - - - - - - - 
On 9 July, at COT, Captain :-- --- -- - 

!was wearing the hijab as she had been told by 
the Air Force recruiter she would be allowed to wear. Captain: . - - - - - - - - :was never issued 
I. - . . - . - . -I 
military uniforms as normal during the first day of COT. On 10 July 03, Captain:--------' 
was removed from COT classes.  She was dis-enrolled from COT on 19 July 03 for 
failure to meet eligibility requirements. The only requirement she failed to meet was her 
insistence on dressing in accordance with her faith. 

. - - - - - - - 7  

-------- 

Captain: 

ithen began the process to seek a request for religious 

------------------ 

a~commodatiori~i~brdance 
with AFI 36-2903. On 26 Nov 03, her request was denied 
by LtGenL --,*,,,,..,,- 
\ III AF Deputy Chief of St@ for Personnel. On  16 December 
2004, Captain i 
:was informed that her request was denied. She was informed she 
had the option to attend the next COT class which was scheduled to begin on 6 Jan 04. 
, - - - - - - - - 
Captain 1 - - - - - - - m 
requirements of her religion while attending COT, 

--------. 
:was told she would not be able to dress in accordance with the 

- - - - - - - - . 
. - - - - - - - -1 

On 24 December 03, CP? 

:informed her commander she could not return 
to COT if she would be requirccl~gdrgss in a manner that was forbidden by  her beliefs. 
On 27 September 2004, Captain: . - - - - - - - . was discharged from the Air Force. The 
character of service was honorable and the narrative reason for separation was 
unsatisfactory performance. 

I - - - - - - - - ?  

Captain: . - - - - - - - - a   worked at the Maxwell Dental Clinic from July 03 until her 

separation. She was assigned - - duties 
outstanding manner. Captair$ 
this time she was subjected tobbifi-intentional and unintentional harassment. 

- - - - - - .I as a dental officer and she performed in an 

:dressed in civilian attire wearing the hijab. During 

3. Legal Analysis. 

, - - - - - - - - 

Captain: I - - - 7 - - - - ,   !(hereinafter the petitioner) has the burden of demonstrating that 

the discharge was improper or inequitable. As a general rule, a member of the armed 
forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member's 
armed force. 10 USC 774 The Code defines religious apparel as apparel the wearing of 
which is part of the observance of the religious faith practiced by the member. I0 USC 
774(4 There is no question the petitioner's request to wear the hijab and dress in long 
sleeves and pants meets the criteria of 10 USC 774 ( See Encl. 1, Exhibits L-M) 

There are two exceptions to the general rule that items of religious apparel can be 
worn in uniform. The exceptions are if the Secretary concerned determines that the item 
of religious apparel: 
(1) in circumstances with respect to which the Secretary determines that the wearing of 
the item would interfere with the performance of the member's military duties; or 
(2) if the Secretary determines, under regulations that the item of apparel is not neat and 
conservative. 10 USC 774@) 

Congress has passed legislation that provides even further protection to American 
citizens. 42  USC 2000bb (1-4) Congress was responding to Supreme Court rulings which 

had virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious 
exercise imposed by laws neutral to religion. 42  USC 2000bb (a) (4) Congress 
specifically applied the act to all previous legislation to include 10 USC 774, 42 USC 
2000bb-3 (b)  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act reestablished the compelling 
interest test. 42 USC 200066 (a) (5) and (b)  (6) 

In response to 10 USC 774, the Secretary of Defense issued DOD 1300.17. The 

Secretary of the Air Force has issued AFI 36-2903 Table 2.6 and Table 2.9. Both the 
DOD Instruction and the AFI violate 42 lJSC 2000bb. Both instructions ignore the 
compelling interest test. 

fault for inform in^ the aetitioncr that she would be 
&sue #l- The Air Force I- 
allowed to dress in accordance with her faith bv wearing the hiiab and weariqg 
uniforms covering her legs and arms and subseauentlv refusing $0 allow the 
petitioner to do so. 

The military departments should develop a statement advising of DOD policy on 
individual religious practices and military requirements to applicants for commissioning, 
enlistment and reenlistment. DOD 1300.17par 3.2.5 Despite that the instruction was 
issued over 10 years prior to the petitioner beginning her commissioning process the Air 
Force has failed to develop such a statement.  The petitioner's reliance on the promise of 
Air Force officials was reasonable. The petitioner was clear about her religious dress 
requirements and was ultimately informed she could dress in conformance with her 
beliefs. Her recruiter told her directly she could dress in accordance with her beliefs, She 
was informed an Air Force Officer had research the issue and there were written orders 
that allowed the wearing of the hijab. She wore the hijab at every stage of the recruiting 
process to include the commissioning ceremony conducted by another Air Force Officer. 
The United States Code states religious apparel can generally be worn with the uniform. 
Under the totality of the circumstances the petitioner's belief was reasonable. 

Issue # 2- The Air Force's failure to inform the petitioner of the DOD policv on 
individual reli~ious ~ractices as reauired bv DOD policv when she arr~lied for 
commission in^ and subseauent treatment resulted in both Personal and arofessional 
m h i n  to the petitioner and her familv 

The Defense Department has recommended the services provide guidance on the 
DOD policy on individual religious practices and military requirements to applicants for 
commissioning, enlistment and reenlistment. DOD 1300.17par 3.2.5 Other services, 
such as the Army have developed policies as directed by the DOD. The Air Force has 
either intentionally or negligently failed to follow DOD guidance. 

, - - - - - - 
This failure by the Air Force caused TSgt i.  -. . . 

recruiter) to either 
intentionally or negligently misrepresent Air Force policy to the petitioner. In the event 
the misrepresentation was intentional, had  the Air Force had a requirement to provide 
such a policy statement to the petitioner, the petitioner would have had the opportunity to 

discover the rnisrepresentation. In the event the misrepresentation was the result of 
negligence of the recruiter, had the Air Force had such a requirement, the recruiter would 
have known the policy. 

If the petitioner was aware of the policy prior to enlistment, the petitioner could 

have sought the waiver as part of her enlistment package and some of the harm the 
petitioner suffered would not have occurred. 

Issue # 3- DOD 1300.17 and AFI 36-2903 violate 10 USC 774.42 USC 2000 bb (1-4) 
and the 1" Amendment and are unlawful 

Congress clearly states that the general rule is a service member may wear 

religious apparel in uniform with lirnited exceptions. DOD 1300.17 and AFI 36-2903 turn 
the law on its head by making the exceptions the rule. 10  USC 774 places the burden on 
the Service Secretary to demonstrate that one of the exceptions applies. Both instructions 
place the burden on the servicemenber to request an accommodation for an action which 
the law protects except under limited circumstances. The system in place in the military 
is unlawful. 

Neither instruction even plays lip service to 42 USC 2000bb. The DOD 

instruction does not even mention as a reference. The AFI does not refer to it. Both 
instructions clearly do not pass the compelling interest test. 

DOD 1300.17 and AFI 36-2903 violate the la Amendment to the Constitution of 

the United States. The petitioner and other females that practice her religion are barred 
from serving in the United States Air Force solely because of their religious belief. 

we # 4- Denial of ~etitioner's reauest to cover ua her arms and lens with the 
militarv uniform to accommodate her reliaious belief was a violation of DOD 
1300.17. AFI w-itution 

See Analysis for Issue 3. 

bsue # 5-  N o w i n e  members of COT c
ref us in^ to allow members of the COT to wear the hiiab is a violation of the US 
Constitution. 42 USC 2000bb (1-4) and 10 USC 774 

a

l

s

s

 

The petitioner should have the same right to practice her religion and serve in the 
Air Force as a male who practices the Jewish religion. The Air Force accommodating one 
religion while not the other is a violation of 10 USC 774, 42 USC 2000bb,  amendment 
to the  US Constitution, and the 14'~ Amendment to the US Constitution. 

The Chaplain of the Air Force recognized that the wearing of the hijab would not 
detract from any Air Force uniform. (See Encl 1, Exhibit K) Americans have seen various 
generals in uniform with various religious or cultural headdresses identical or similar to 
the hijab beginning with Desert Storm and continuing to the present day, Other than a 

preference for the Jewish religion in favor of the Muslim religion there is no logical 
reason to permit the wear on the yarmulke on the head while forbidding the wearing of 
the hijab on the head while uncovered. Both are visible religious wear familiar to most 
Americans. However, Air Force policy allows one and not the other. 

Issue # 6- The  endorsement^ to ~etitiontr's relivious waiver reauest are flawed and 
its flawed lopic contributed to the wroneful denial of petitioner's reuuesf 

See Analysis for Issues # 3 , 4  and 5. One would hope that if commissioned 

officers in a COT class were informed that the wearing of either the hijab or yarmulke 
was allowed for religious reasons those officers could accept that and not allow it to 
interfere with discipline, unit cohesion, team building, morale and safety that are vital to 
the COT training environment.  Members of the Air Force have the intelligence and 
religious tolerance to understand that such accommodations are not defeating the 
uniformity that is a desirable requirement in the military but recognizing the strength of 
the diversity in the Air Force. In today's  military environment and the potential military 
environment the wearing of the hijab by the petitioner would have likely been an asset in 
many deployment  situation^.^ 

The statement that AFI 36-2903 indicates religious headgear must be able to be 

worn concealed beneath Air Force headgear is incorrect. The AFI does not prohibit 
wearing of religious headgear that is not concealed rather the instruction just  requires the 
approval at a higher level. The concern about the wearing of long sleeves in hot weather 
is addressed in a common sense manner by the Chaplain of the Air Force. (See Encl  1, 
Exhibit K) The petitioner was attending a COT class during the winter months. 

The petitioner was not provided enough information in answers to petitioner's 

FOIA request to determine if the legal advice provided to the decision maker was flawed. 
(See Encl2) However, in reading the denial to petitioner's request it is hard to imagine 
that the decision maker started with the position as required by law that a member of the 
armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the 
member's armed force. 10 USC 774 A cynic might suggest that the Department of 
Defense has no intention to provide for religious accommodation when wearing the 
military uniform. One could suggest that the only reason that the department has 
accommodated the yarmulke is due to Congressional interest after the case of Goldman v, 
Weinberger, 475 US 503 (1 986) 

ue # 7- Blocks 26 and 28 of ~etitioner's DD Form 214 do not accurately reflect 

Petitioner's service and will barn her for the rest of her life 

Block 26 separation code is GHJ and block 28 narrative reason for separation is 

unsatisfactory performance. Separation code GHJ stands for involuntary discharge 
recommended by  board, failure to adhere to acceptable standards of proficiency. (See 
Encl3) 

A well known example would be the controversy then LtCol I - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- :and the requirement to wear 
the hijab and other cultural dress requirements during operations in the Middle East 

---------------- 

Petitioner was removed &om her COT class because her religious beliefs 

conflicted with the COT'S uniform requirements. At most her performance at COT was 
two days of which her only transgression was the failure to wear a uniform in accordance 
with COT requirements. Of course, the uniform was never issued to her.  Petitioner 
would have become a dentist in the Air Force medical (dental) corps if she had 
successfully completed COT. She performed the duties of a dental officer from late July 
2003 until her separation in on September 27,2004. She performed those duties in an 
exemplary manner. (See Encl 1, Exhibits E and S and Encl4) 

A conservative estimate would place her actual performance as a dental ofiicer as 
approximately 240 days.3 Her two days of performance at COT would be less than 1% of 
her total performance on active duty. Even assuming the Air Force's failure to provide 
her religious accommodation is correct; her only transgression was to abide by her 
religious beliefs in an orderly and professional manner. Compound that with the Air 
Force's failure to provide potential commission applicants with the DOD policy on 
religious belief as required by DOD policy and the active misstatements of recruiting 
personnel of Air Force policy it is clear that such labels on a DD 214 are unjust and 
inequitable.  Petitioner performed in an exemplary vice unsatisfactory manner and her 
performance was well above acceptable standards of proficiency. Petitioner was never a 
respondent at a Board of Inquiry POI) despite the petitioner's request for a BOI. 
Petitioner's DD 2 14 cast her in a negative light and will affect her adversely for the rest 
of her life. 

Issue # 8- Block #21 of w-ner 
Blocks 26 and 28 were unjust and ineauitable 

9 s DD Fo rm 214 is a result of ~etitianer's belief that 

Block 21 states member refused to sign. This statement most likely will be viewed 
negatively by anyone reviewing the form. The petitioner's refusal to sign was justified  as 
outline in Issue # 7. The petitioner would be willing to sign a DD 214 that accurately 
reflects her service. 

9- Removal of anv adverse information as a result of ~etitioner's request for 

-# 
r e l i e i o ~ o m m o d a t i o n  that remains in her Air Force Recordg 

See Analysis for Issues # 1-8. The petitioner's  military record contains many 

references to failing to maintain satisfactory progress. (See Encl 5) Any adverse 
information in any records maintained by the Air Force that are part of petitioner's 
military record is wrong and the records must be removed. 

Issue W  10- Waiver of rtcoupment of bonus oav 

All the petitioner did was attempt to serve her country and practice her religion. 
She did an outstanding job  as a dentist in the Air Force. Both petitioner and her husband 

The ~0n~f:rvative number of days is arrived at by  taking the minimum number of months 12 and 
multiply~ng it by 20 working days per month 

suffered enormous personal and financial costs because of mistakes and illegal practices 
of the Air Force. Simply put the United States Air Force is at fault. Although allowing the 
petitioner to keep the bonus paid to her will not offset the harm caused it is the right thing 
to do. 

Issue # 11- The endorsement and denial of ~etltioner's reaucst f o r d i ~ i o u s  
~ccomrnodatiop was a violation of the 10 USC 774.42  USC 2000bb (1-4).  and the US 
Constitution 

See Analysis for Issues # 3 and 6. 

Issue # 12- Allowin~r waiver of COT for other oficers in a similar ~ o s l t ~ o n  
petitioner but not allowinn petitioner to waive COT in a v i m  of the Constitutiog 
and 42 USC 2000bb (1-4) 

. .  as the 

The petitioner is aware that the Air Force did not require at least one other officer 

to attend COT. This officer had a similar military background as the petitioner, i.e, no 
previous military service and in the dental corps. Many of the Air Force's abjections to 
petitioner's request for religious accommodation were raised due to the alleged impact in 
a training environment.  The Air Force could have waived COT for the petitioner and 
accommodated her religious requirements as an Air Force dentist. See Analysis for Issues 
3-11. 

4. The following relief is requested:4 

a) Restore to active duty in the Air Force in the AEGD 
b) Correct adverse remarks on DD 214 Blocks 21,26, and 28 .f. 
c) No recoupment attempt of any monies paid to petitioner as bonus pay 
d) Approval of petitioner's request for religious accommodation 
e) Finding that DOD 1300.17 and AFI 36-2903 are unlawful 
f) Require the Air Force to follow DOD policy and develop a statement advising 
applicants for commissioning, enlistment and reenlistment of DOD policy on individual 
religious practices and military requirements. 
g) Remove any adverse remarks in petitioner's military file  - 
h)  Award the petitioner the National Defense Service ~ e d a l ~  

-. 

-- 

In the event the authority is not vested to grant the relief requwaed by the petitioner by your agency the 
petitioner requests a recommendation that the relief requestd be granted. 
In the event petitioner is not restored to active duty petitioner demands payment for damages caused by 
the Air Force's breach of contract. The damages include but are not limited to $30,000 bonus, $27,000 loss 
of residency (consenatively estimated at hours of residency times $240 per credit hour), and $80,000 in 
student loan rcpaymcnt lost ($20,000 per year) 
The petitioner was on active duty during a time period that any active duty sarvicemenber would be 
awarded the NDSM 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR UNIVERSITY (AETC) 

JAN  20  p04 

FROM: AUICC 

SUBJECT:  Notification of Show Cause Action Initiated Under AFI 36-3206, 

Chapter 2, Paragraph 2.3.11 

1.  I am initiating action-against you under AFI  36-3206, paragaph 2.3.1 1, that requires you to 
show cause for retention on active duty. 

2.  1 am taking this action becahe you failed to maintain satisfactory progress while in an active 
status student officer program.  Specifically you were dismolled fiom Commissioned Officer 
Training (COT) for failure to meet eligibility requirements.  You submitted a waiver requesting 
to be allowed to wear a hijab head covering while in uniform and not wear the short sleeve 
blouse.  That request has been denied.  You then indicated you did not wish to be enrolled in 

,  COT and requested separation.  The least favbrable character of discharge that the Secretary of 
..the Air Force may approve in this case is a discharge under honorable conditions (general), 
Attached are copies of documeniky evidence supporting this action. 

3.  Sign and date the attached indorsement achowledging receipt of this notification 
memorandum.  A copy of the notification memorandum will be provided to you.  If you decline 
to aclcnowledge receiving this notification memorandum, the officer presenting it to you will 
indicate on it the date and time that you declined to acknowledge receiving it, and it will be 
included as a part of your case file. 

4.  Familiarize yourself with AFI 36-3206, particularly the rights that you have.  This publication 
is available for your review at the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Air University.  If you do 
not apply for retirement or request a resignation in lieu of further administrative action, a board 
(Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) or Board of Inquiry 
Chapter 6 or Chapter 7.  Contact Captain: 
Maxwell AFB AL 36112, phone:  DSN 49j:Ti8g-COMi;354) 953-2186, to discuss the 
. ------ 
pmcedurcs involved and your rights and options.  If you decline counsel, contact Major[::::::::' 
m - - - - - - - 
Maxwell AFB, AL 361 12, for counseling about your rights and options. 

1 (334) 953-6499,42  MSS/DPM, Chief, Military Personnel Fligbt, 50 LaMay Plaza South, 

--- - POI)) 

--  will convene as provided in 
i Area Defense Counsel, 565 Pine St., 

5.  If you elect to present matters to a BOI, the standard of proof used by the board to make 
findings is a preponderance of evidence.  'You may present evidencc and argument to rebut the 
reason set forth in this notification memorandum or any additional reason or information 
developed during the BOI proceedings.  You also may present other pertinent evidence. 

6.  Within 10 calendar days after you receive this notification memorandum, you must respond 
by indorsement to me.  If1 do not receive the indorsement within the allotted time, I will proceed 
with further action under MI 36-3206.  Include in your indorsement: 

a.  Any statement you wish to submit on your own behalf and/or any additional evidence that  , 
,' 
you wish me to consider. If you are unable to submit your statements or documentary 
evidence witbin 10 calendar days after receiving this notification memorandum, you may  ," 
request more time as allowed under AFI 36-3206.  Submit your request for additional time to 
HQ AU/JA.  If you do not submit statements or evidence, your failure will constitute a waiver 
of your right to do so, and I will refer your case to the AFPB. 

b.  A statement that Captain: 
you fully understand yom-$&ts  and options in this action.  If you decline counsel, so state 
and indicate that Major: - - - - - - ; Chief) Military Personnel Flight, counseled you and that you 
fully understand your rights and options in this action. 

' Area Defense Counsel, counseled you and that 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

. . -. . . . -. . . . -. . . .b 

c.  A statement that you understand the following regarding recoupment of education 
assistance, special pay, or bonuses received if you haven't  completed the period of active 
duty you agreed to serve: 

(1)  Rccoupment of a portion of ducation assistance, special pay, or bonus monies 
received if you voluntarily separate. 

(2)  ~ e c o u ~ m e n t  of a portion of education assistance received if involuntary discharge is 
for misconduct. 

(3)  ~ccoupment of a portion of special pay or bonus monies received regardless of the 
basis for involuntary discharge. 

(4)  The recoupmcnt in all cases is an amount that bears the same ratio to the total amount 
or cost providtd to you as the unscrved portion of active duty bcars to the total period of 
active duty that you agreed to serve. 
. 

. 

(5)  Lfyou dispute that you arc indebted for educational assistance, the board of inquiry, 
or if you do not choose or are not entitled to a board of inquiry, an authority appointed by 
the h4AJCOMICC, will make fixldings and recommendations concerning the validity of 
your indebtedness. See AFT 36-3206,4.32. and 4.33.,  regarding special rules for 
recoupment . 

' 

d.   statement notifying me whether you intend to apply for retirement or tender your 
resignation.  If you have applied for retirement or tendered your resignation, attach a copy of 
the retirement application or the resignation. 

e.  A statement that the Area Defense Counsel or the Chief, Military Personnel Fligbt 
explained separation pay to you and that you understand the eligibility criteria to receive 
separation pay. 

f.  Any other pertinent information. 

7.  In response to this notification memorandym, you may, within 10 calendar days, tender your 
resignation under AFI 36-3207, chapter 2, section B, with the understanding that, if the Secretary 
of the Air Force accepts your resignation, you may receive a dischatge under honorable 
conditions (general) unless the Secretary of the Air Force determines that you should receive an 
honorable dischggc.  If the Secretary of the Air Force accepts your resignation, your discharge 
date will be as soon as possible but no later than 10 calendar days .after the date that the MPF 
receives separation instructions. 

.  . 

8.  I have not taken action required under AFI 31-501 because you do not have wd have not 
within the past three years had access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), Single 
Integrated Operational Plan-Extremely Sensitive Information (SIOP-ESl),  or other special access 
programs. 

I 

9. You may request excess laave if the Air Force doesn't require your further participation in 
processjng your case. 

C...-.-......-.-.-.---------------------: 

Lieutenant General, USAJ 
Commander 

- - - - - - - - . 

5 Attachments: 
1.  comm&der7s Recommendation for Action, dated  13  January 2004 
2,  Memo from Major :,  . . . . . .; dated 8 January 2004 
3.  Appeal Notification, dated 16 December 2003 
4.  AFI 36-3206 
5.  AFI 36-3207 

1st Ind, AUICC, 20 ~huary 2004, Notification of Show Cause Action Initiated Under AFI 36-  . 
3206, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2.3.1 1 

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

Captain: C -  --- --- --- --- - - a  
MEMORANDUM FOR AUICC 

I acknowledge receiving the notification of administrative discharge action memorandum from 
AUICC, dated 

n dL/  with five attachments at Zlh fi 414  on 

5 

.