| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that she was discharged in the pay grade of E-4.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was unjustly reduced to the pay grade of E-1 because she refused to take the Anthrax vaccine. She also states that no one is being discharged for refusing to take the Anthrax vaccine.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted on 12 October 1994, for a period of 4 years and training as an automated logistics specialist. On 17 April 1998, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years. In both her enlistment and reenlistment contracts, she took an oath in which she acknowledged that she understood that as a member of the Armed Forces, she would be required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties.
On 10 November 1999, charges were preferred against the applicant for refusing a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer on 15 October 1999, to submit to mandatory Anthrax vaccine immunizations.
On 19 January 2000, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In her request, she indicated that she was making the request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request. She also admitted that she was guilty of the charges against her or of lesser-included offenses, which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. She further declined to submit a statement or explanation in her own behalf.
The appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved her request on 21 January 2000 and directed that she be discharged under other than honorable conditions. He also directed that she be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19.
Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 4 February 2000, in the pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. She had served 5 years, 3 months and 23 days of total active service.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant has applied for an upgrade of her discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 600-8-19 serves as the authority for enlisted promotions and reductions. Paragraph 6-15a provides, in pertinent part, that when the separation authority determines that a soldier is to be discharged under other than honorable conditions, the soldier will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by courtmartial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of her rights.
2. Accordingly, she was properly reduced to the lowest enlisted grade at the time the approving authority approved her request.
3. After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on her records. In doing so she admitted guilt to the charge against her (disobeying a lawful order). While she may now believe that she made the wrong choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date, especially considering the seriousness of the charge against her.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__kak___ __mm___ ___tp ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076313 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 322 | 133.0000/RED IN RK |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011501C070206
The applicant provides copies of his commander's recommendation for nonjudicial punishment with counseling statements; Department of the Army Form 2627, Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, with applicant's statement; Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum, subject: Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program; and newspaper articles that discuss the program. The Director of the Military Vaccine Agency stated that paragraph 5- 4c(2) of Army Regulation 600-20...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004834
With less than a year left in my enlistment at the time of refusal, I asked my command repeatedly to allow me to finish out my enlistment without taking the vaccination since I would not be able to complete the series by the end of my original enlistment. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance", and the separation code is "JHJ." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form...
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500632
th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Forces Reserve, New Orleans, LA, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.030916: Applicant discharged from United States Marine Corps Reserve with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. Specifically, the Applicant refused a direct order to take the Anthrax vaccination. In the Applicant’s case the NDRB has no authority to provide an...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00624
MD01-00624 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.
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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00404A
In a letter to her Congressman, applicant contends a federal judge ruled in Dec 03 the order to take the anthrax vaccine was illegal (Exhibit G). Additionally, we note that litigation concerning the anthrax vaccination program is still pending and that additional rulings have been made since the one referenced by the applicant that the order to take the anthrax vaccination was illegal. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00541
ND02-00541 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020321, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Statement from Applicant, dated March 7, 2002 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00532
Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Failed to obey a lawful order issued by Major W.P. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E). However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001821
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is...