RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00183
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code which will permit him to reenlist in the Air National Guard.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never advised of the meaning of the RE code and believes that it is unjust and discriminatory.  He feels that he can be a productive member of the Air National Guard, but the RE code of 2C is barring him from reenlistment 

The diagnosis of somnambulism (sleepwalking) was disputed prior to discharge by a civilian physician and was not to be a part of the discharge.  He has been working as a police officer for 12 years without any instances of sleepwalking.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a psychological report.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 Jul 86, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  Prior to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of airman first class with an effective date and date of rank of 3 Sep 86, after completing technical school requirement.  Applicant received one performance report with an overall rating of 8.

On 15 Apr 87, applicant received a letter of reprimand for non-compliance with AFR 35-10 standards.

On 16 May 87, applicant received a letter of reprimand for reporting to work late.

On 22 Jan 88, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for conditions that interfere with military service.  The specific reason for the proposed action was that:

On 13 Aug 87 and 11 Jan 88, applicant was diagnosed by the mental health clinic as suffering from somnambulism (sleepwalking), including night terror, and with anti-social personality traits.  They recommended that discharge was in the best interest of the Air Force and the applicant.  On that same date, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his rights to submit written statements in his own behalf.  On 28 Jan 88, the staff judge advocate found the case file to be legally sufficient to support an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  On 1 Feb 88, the discharge authority approved an honorable discharge, without P&R.

On 3 Feb 88, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of conditions that interfere with military service-not disability-sleepwalking, and was issued an RE code of 2C.  He served 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was administratively separated for unsuitability due to night terrors, sleepwalking and maladaptive personality traits.  His DD Form 214 lists sleepwalking as the basis for discharge.  The preponderance of the evidence of record indicates that the applicant experienced sleepwalking for several years prior to entering active duty and that he did not report it on his enlistment medical documentation.  Had he reported this history at the time of his enlistment medical examination, it is likely that he would not have been accepted for military service.

The preponderance of the evidence of the record indicates that the applicant experienced several episodes of disqualifying sleepwalking that was accompanied by violent behavior and disruption of the barracks prompting referral for evaluation.  Sleepwalking, both episodes and sleepwalking disorder, when occurring in the young adult are prone to recur under stressful circumstances such as found in military training and operations and are disqualifying for military service.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  It is his opinion that no change in the records is warranted.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Jun 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects that he was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing directives.  Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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-2004-00183 in Executive Session on 8 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 04.

                                   Panel Chair