PART II - APPLICATION DATA
(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)
1. Character of Discharge: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 030502
3. Authority for separation:
a. Regulation: Chapter 14, AR 635-200
b. Reason: Misconduct
4. Prior review(s): NONE
PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review
1. Service data: 2. Awards and
decorations:
AAM
a. Period entered for: 5 Years GCMDL
b. Entry date: 990120 NDSM
c. Age: 18 Years DOB: 800518 AFEM
d. Educational level: HS Grad ASR
e. Aptitude area score:
GT: 127 3. Highest grade
achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
4 Years 3 Months 13 Days
4. Performance evaluations:
NONE
PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued
5. Periods of unauthorized absence: NONE
Status Inclusive dates
AWOL
Mil conf
Civil conf
Other
6. Nonjudicial punishment:
Date Offense(s)
021104 Willfully disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT “to be
inoculated with the Anthrax vaccine” (021010); Willfully
disobeyed a lawful command from a 1LT “to be inoculated with
the Anthrax vaccine” (021022)(Field Grade)
7. Court-Martial data: NONE
a. SCM:
Date Offense(s)
b. SPCM:
Date Offense(s)
c. GCM:
Date Offense(s)
8. Remarks: NONE
SECTION B - Prior Service Data
NONE
Other discharge(s):
Service From To Type Discharge
PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW
SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:
a. Evidence of record shows that on 10 February 2003, the unit
commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under
the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of
misconduct—commission of a serious offense, with an under other than
honorable conditions discharge. The reason for the proposed action was
that he disobeyed a lawful command from two commissioned officers by
refusing to take the Anthrax vaccine, for which he received a Field Grade
Article 15. He was advised of his rights. On 13 February 2003, the
applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the
discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. He also
voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative
separation board contingent on receiving a characterization of service no
less favorable than honorable. The unit commander subsequently recommended
separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.
On 26 March 2003, the Battalion and Brigade commander reviewed the proposed
discharge action, recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for
conditional waiver and recommended approval of the separation action with
an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 11 April 2003, the
separation authority disapproved the applicant’s administrative separation
action and approved his request for a personal appearance before an
administrative separation board. On 15 April 2003, the applicant, again
under legal consult, unconditionally and voluntarily waived consideration
of his case by an administrative separation board. On 22 April 2003, the
separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed
that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of
under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduced to the lowest
enlisted grade.
b. On 2 May 2003, the applicant was discharged. At the time of
discharge, the applicant had completed 4 years, 3 months, and 13 days of
active military service in the period under review.
2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action: Army Regulation 635-200
sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
Chapter l4 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating
members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to
include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and
desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other
than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but
a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge
may be granted.
SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2. Exhibit(s) submitted:
A-1: DD Form 293, dated 040115, with fifteen (15) enclosures.
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
B-l: Other Documents: NONE
PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)
SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion
Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor
a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):
b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):
PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING
SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits
1. Review/hearing information:
a. Type requested:
( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing
b. Type Held:
( X )Records review ( ) Hearing
( ) Tender Offer
c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington, DC on 22 September
2004.
d. Appearance by:
Applicant ( ) Yes ( X ) No
Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No
e. Applicant testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:
PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS
1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:
( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A
of this case report and directive.
( ) Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as
follows:
( X ) Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as
follows:
Board Issue: (5) The characterization of service is too harsh.
b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason
2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on
issues of propriety and/or equity:
a. Propriety: The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to
the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI,
Paragraph 1, above.
(1-4) The issues are rejected. The evidence of record does not
support the applicant’s contentions and the applicant has provided no
independent corroborating evidence in support of his contentions. Further,
the applicant’s contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural matters,
which were finally and conclusively adjudicated during the applicant’s
discharge proceedings. See response to issue (5) below.
b. Equity: The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to
the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI,
Paragraph 1, above.
(5) The issue is accepted. The Board carefully examined the
applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review.
There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as
well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the
seriousness of the offenses. The Board does not condone the applicant’s
misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service is
inequitable. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge,
the Board found that his misconduct was partially mitigated by service of
sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.
Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an
upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable
conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both
proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
3. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s): NONE
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote
1. Board conclusion(s):
The discharge was:
( X ) Proper.
( ) Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to
.
( ) Improper as to reason. Change reason to
under .
( ) Equitable.
( X ) Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to
General, Under Honorable Conditions.
( ) Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to
under .
( ) Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for
separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should
be changed to under
.
2. Voting record: Change No Change
Reason 0 5
Characterization 5 0
The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in
Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address
below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right
corner of this document.
Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
ATTN: Promulgation Team
1901 South Bell Street, 2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202-4508
3. Minority views: NONE
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication
Case report reviewed and verified
MR. RIVERA
Case Reviewing Official
PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE
TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis Date: 24 September 2004
The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of
Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as
Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant
named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new
DD Form 2l4 to the applicant which reflects the following directed
change(s):
( X ) Change characterization of discharge to General, Under
Honorable Conditions.
( X ) Other (see remarks below).
Remarks: This action entails a restoration of grade to E2.
SECTION B - CERTIFICATION
Approval Authority:
ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board
Official:
MARY E. SHAW
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge C - Other
B - Material submitted by applicant
INDEX RECORD:
AR Number: 2004102902 INDEX NUMBERS: A9406
Date of Review: 040922 A9218
Character of Service: UD A0101
Date of Discharge: 030502 A0113
Authority: AR 635-200 C14
Reason: A6730
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: GD 5-0 A
PART IX - VOTING RECORD
Name Reason Characterization
CHANGE NC HON UHC NC
UNCHAR
1. Mbr X X
2. Mbr X X
3. Mbr X X
4. Mbr X X
5. PO X X
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00118
ND01-00118 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001101, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to: Naval...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701006
A review of the Applicant’s service record indicates the Applicant had only one adverse action in his record; the non-judicial punishment for refusal to submit to anthrax vaccination. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the discharge was proper but inequitable based on current anthrax policies and regulations. This...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600267
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” 000125: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense – refusal to take Anthrax Vaccinations.000125: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the...
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 | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00944
A federal court recently ruled that the AVIP violated United States law because the vaccine was considered investigational and it’s license was never finalized. They stated they would not take any further action on his request. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes the federal judge who issued the first injunction order has recently remanded the FDA’s Final Rule back to the FDA and has ordered a...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00203
On 15 February 2000, applicant submitted a personal letter of resignation in lieu of Discharge Review Board action (DRB) wherein he requested an honorable discharge. His rebuttal to the referral OPR, dated 25 May 2000, stated he refused the order to participate in AVIP because he considered it an illegal order as the anthrax vaccine was considered “experimental.” On 14 December 2000, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) accepted his resignation in lieu of an administrative DRB and he was...
AF | DRB | CY2009 | FD2008-00207
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. The Board finds that neither the evidence of record nor that...
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...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01188
ND02-01188 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020820, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. (See Document 21) 3) In 1996, Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI) filed an IND application to the FDA showing a designation for'inhalation anthrax', changing the 'route of administration', and changing the 'vaccine schedule'. 312.3 1996 IND (Investigation New Drug) application 1998 and 1999 IND application...