NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD
AFSN/SSAN
AMN
TYPE GEN | PERSONAL APPEARANCE
x RECORD REVIEW
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION
__|___
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
Case heard in Washington, D.C.
application to the AFBCMR.
X = Upgrade, Reason for Discharge and Reenlistment Code
SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742
APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE.
MEMBER SITTING HON GEN UOTHC OTHER DENY
>
x
x
NE
XxX
SSUES A94.55 INDEX NUMBER A67.90 ja ee
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
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING
HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER
07 Jul 2009 FD-2008-00207
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an
Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant’s request.
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
CASE NUMBER
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 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
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00029
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. Attachment: Examiner's Brief I FD2004 -00029 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH SRA) MISSING DISCHARGE DOCUMENTS 1. (Change Discharge to...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00425
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 C O M M ~ N D DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDKEWS AFB, bin 20762-7~02 1 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 1 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used d AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2005-00425 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate. Attachment: Examiner's Brief , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00032
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0032 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s for failure to obey a lawful command to take the Anthrax vaccination. (Appeal/Denied) (No mitigation) (2) 23 Jan 01, RAF Lakenheath, UK ~ Article 90.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00397
In view of the foregoing findings, the Board furthcr 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 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH SRA) 1. In addition to military counsel, you have the right to employ civilian counsel.
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00126
The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on April 10,2000) that he understood he must receive an Honorable discharge to receive future educational entitlements. (Change Discharge to Honorable & Change the Reason and Authority for Discharge) Issues: I was discharged with a General Discharge for refusing to participate in the Anthrax Vaccination Program. DEPARTMENT OF,THE AIR FORCE 16* COMMUNICATION SQUADRON (mTC) MEMORANDUM FOR A...
AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00521
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSNlSSAN t AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD MEMBER SITTING u s A94.11 7 INDEX NI:MBER A67.90 -- -- I ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD I 1 1 2 / APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 4 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER Case heard at Washington, D.C. The Board...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00249
The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for willfully disobeying an order and an Article 15 for willfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal age of 2 1. You, who knew of your duties, on or about 3 Mar 02, were derelict in the performance of those duties in that you willfully consumed alcoholic beverages while under the legal age of twenty-one, as it was your duty not to do. In addition to military counsel, you have the right to employ civilian counsel.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00172
NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD BEARING RECORD ------ X NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION PERSONAL APPEARANCE AB RECORD REVIEW C.-.-..-..-...I ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSFL -.-.q.m.--.w rwE GEN $$"~@*~d~~~f%y YES No X MEMBER SITTING 1 I ORDER APPOINTTNG THE BOARD 2 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 1 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 1 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 4 COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDI'I'IONAL EXHIBITS SUBMI'II'EL) AT TIME...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0214
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. 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...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00402
The applicant further contends that after his testimony, the applicant was tried by a summary court-martial for perjury and acquitted. On 9 April 2003, the applicant submitted a Chapter 4 request. Subsequently, on 12 May 2003, the applicant was ordered to testify under a grant of immunity at the court-martial of Airman L. During his testimony at Airman L’s court-martial, the applicant testified that he had not used ecstasy on 25 May 2002 and that Airman M did not give him ecstasy on 25 May 2002.