RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02278
		INDEX NUMBER:  126.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15s imposed on him on 9 Aug 96 and 8 Oct 98 be set aside and all property, rights, and privileges of which he was deprived be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Both Article 15s he received were for sleeping on post.  As a result of a medical sleep study, he has been diagnosed with insomnia and Idiopathic Hypersomulance, which caused his inability to stay awake while performing guard duty.

In support of his appeal, he submits a statement from an Air Force physician, a statement from a sleep disorder specialist, and extracts from his medical records.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 1 Nov 95.  On 7 Aug 96, while serving in the grade of airman (E-2), he was offered proceedings under Article 15 for the alleged offense of sleeping on post while on duty as a sentinel at the entry control point.  On 8 Aug 96, the applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 and submitted a written presentation to his commander.  On 9 Aug 96, the commander determined that the applicant had committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of a six-month suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1).  The applicant elected not to appeal.

On 30 Sep 98, while serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3), at a different assignment than the first Article 15, the applicant was offered proceedings under Article 15 for the alleged offenses of failure to go and sleeping on post as a sentinel.  On 5 Oct 98, the applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 and submitted a written presentation.  On 8 Oct 98, the commander determined that the applicant had committed the alleged offenses.  He imposed punishment consisting of a six-month suspended reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) and suspended forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months.  The applicant elected not to appeal.

The applicant was discharged on 31 Oct 99 after being denied reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program and was given a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2X.”  A resume of the applicant’s enlisted performance reports (EPRs) follows:

	Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	  2 Aug 97					3
	  2 Aug 98					5
	  2 Aug 99					4

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

Coincident with the applicant’s commander’s denial of his reenlistment, the applicant was diagnosed with a sleep disorder felt to be a combination of “idiopathic hypersomnolence” (Versus narcolepsy) and a pattern of poor sleep hygiene (behavioral habits).  In addition, the sleep disorder specialist was concerned about psychologic symptoms of anxiety and depression that may have been contributing to his insomnia and referred him for mental health evaluation.  The available mental health records show no diagnosis of mental health disorder.  The applicant’s course of therapy included education regarding sleep habits (“sleep hygiene”) and medication to assist with sleeping and finally the stimulant Ritalin to assist with daytime wakefulness.  Because the applicant had a sleep disorder that interfered with the performance of his duty, he was referred for Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  Because he had a scheduled separation date within a month, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) returned him to duty.  If he had reenlisted and was not within 12 months of a scheduled separation, his condition would have been found unfitting for continued duty, and because symptoms were recorded as beginning prior to entering service, would have been determined to have existed prior to service.  Discharge under other than Title 10 would have been recommended (administrative discharge).

There are two issues relating to the applicant’s sleep disorder diagnosis.  First, the extent to which it may be mitigating with regard to the Article 15 punishments he received for sleeping on post, and second, whether his condition is disqualifying for enlistment.  The degree to which his sleep disorder may be seen as mitigating his conduct is open to debate.  The sleep disorders specialist emphasized the contribution of poor sleep hygiene on the part of the applicant, a factor largely under control of the individual.  Further, the sleep specialist was frustrated with the applicant’s adherence to recommendations regarding sleep habits.  However, the sleep specialist did believe that the applicant had problems with a mild disorder not under the applicant’s control of hypersomnia, not otherwise clearly diagnosed (“idiopathic hypersomnia”).  Thus, it is not a clear-cut case that the applicant’s two episodes of falling asleep on duty were entirely outside his control.

The applicant’s sleep disorder is disqualifying for enlistment.  Even if the Article 15s are set aside, he is not medically qualified for enlistment or commissioning.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  His argument that he suffered from a medical condition, which may have caused his discipline problems, is tenuous at best.  Medically, it had been determined that applicant’s own sleep habits and not an identifiable medical condition caused his sleep deprivation.  The record indicates that the applicant was counseled numerous times by medical personnel and by psychological personnel regarding his sleep habits.  Medically, it was determined applicant did suffer from a mild sleep disorder.  However, it was also determined that it was “unclear” whether the applicant’s two episodes of falling asleep on duty were outside his control.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action to deny reenlistment was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air force policy.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-02278 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                dated 3 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 12 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.