RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03965
		INDEX CODES:  A40.00, 108.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable; he be awarded a disability retirement retroactive to Oct 56 for his service-connected injury/disability (narcolepsy); and, that he be authorized punitive damages.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His condition of narcolepsy was intentionally caused by his poisoning by the Air Force.  Because of the heinous nature of this crime committed against him, he has suffered permanent and irreparable damages to his physical health and economic life for the past 45 years.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided personal statements, extracts from his medical records, and other documents associated with the matter under review. 

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's available military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Jun 56 for a period of four years.

On 17 Jun 58, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-16 (Unsuitability) and furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was credited with 2 years and 12 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial.  He stated that the evidence in the record indicated that the applicant had difficulty with sleeping in class in Oct 56, however, there were no other service medical record entries that report symptoms of excessive daytime sleepiness although the applicant alluded to being disciplined for reporting late for kitchen police (KP) duty.  Post service, and Veterans Administration (VA) rating decisions in 1958 and 1966 made no mention of symptoms or diagnosis of sleep disorder, neurologic disorder or mental disorder.  Sleep disorders such as narcolepsy are chronic conditions, and if noted within the first six months of service are presumed to have existed prior to service.  The applicant presented for care for his symptoms by four months of service.  One month before presenting to the clinic for sleeping in class, he was treated for gastroenteritis.  There were no further record entries that showed his symptoms persisted or worsened and the Medical Consultant concluded that those symptoms resolved consistent with an infection (usually viral) very common in trainees.  There was no evidence this illness (Sep 56) represented poisoning of any kind.  Following a viral illness, some individuals may experience a period of fatigue of variable duration.  

According to the Medical Consultant, there was no evidence in the medical records to support the applicant's contentions.  In his view, no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant's evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating that the available documentation revealed no errors or irregularities that would justify a change to the applicant's records.  The medical aspects of this case were thoroughly explained in the Medical Consultant's advisory and they agree with his review.  In their view, the applicant failed to submit any documentation to confirm that he possessed narcolepsy during his military service that would justify the award of a disability discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 18 Apr 03 for review and response (Exhibit E).  On 7 May 03, the applicant requested that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit F).

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a detailed response.  In summary, he indicated that his records should be corrected in the interest of justice.  He was severely injured with a permanent disability due to the intentional and malicious conduct of the Air Force, that then proceeded to cruelly perpetrate further injuries by a conspiracy to defraud that lasted 46 years, now being carried out by the VA.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

Applicant provided a subsequent response, which is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR).  The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was involuntarily discharged for unsuitability.  We find no evidence which would lead us to believe that his administrative discharge was improper or contrary to the governing directive under which it was effected.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the information used as a basis for his discharge was erroneous, or that at the time of his involuntary separation, the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of his rank and office, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03965 in Executive Session on 26 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jun 03.