MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           23 June 1999       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09556
				   AR1999018452

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In his original application to this Board, the applicant requests award of the Distinguished Service Medal.  He has since then provided separate applications requesting award of:

•	Rifle, carbine, missile, and wheeled vehicle qualification badges
•	Armed Forces Reserve Medal
•	Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
•	Army Good Conduct Medal
•	National Defense Service Medal
•	Soldiers Medal
•	Distinguished Service Cross
•	Army Commendation Medal
•	Meritorious Service Medal
•	Drivers and Mechanic Badges
•	NCO Professional Development Ribbon
•	Drill Instructor Badge
•	Defense Distinguished Service Medal
•	Defense Meritorious Service Medal  

The applicant also requests that a NGB Form 55 (Certificate of Discharge) be sent to him, that the abbreviation “NEFR” (not eligible for reenlistment) be removed from his DD Form 214, that he be furnished a certificate of discharge, and that his NGB Form 55 and NGB Form 22 be corrected to show his grade as Staff Sergeant E-6 [highest grade held?].

Additionally, the applicant requests, in correspondence to members of Congress (MC), DOD, DA and NG officials, relief as follows:

•	A law or an executive order disallowing the military use of minors in medical experimentation
•	Mandatory inpatient and outpatient care by the VA because of long term health effects [he might have] of the toxic substances he ingested and breathed for long time periods during 1958 as a result of medical experiments
•	Special compensation from the DOD, DA, and VA, because of the administration of toxic agents [in 1958], and the exposure of chemicals in 1963 while at Fort McClellan, Alabama
•	Knowledge of and privy to rosters of experimentation he mentions in his correspondence
•	The aforementioned awards, decorations, and badges
  
APPLICANT STATES:  In a 15 August 1998 letter to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army the applicant stated that he was a patriotic human volunteer at the chemical warfare school at Edgewood.  He states that the Army allowed him to volunteer and accepted him for medical experimentation when he was 17 years old without parental permission in violation of a minor’s civil rights, and disregarded his constitutional rights by requiring him to sign waivers and disclaimers.  He was not provided full disclosure of testing to be performed, which was in violation of the Nuremberg code and the later adopted (1964) Helsinki accords.

In May 1958 they found three serious personality profile disorders through testing, of which he was not informed, nor treated for, which was malpractice/negligence, a violation of medical ethics and law.  He did not discover this until 1997 when he received copies of his volunteer file.

In November and December 1958 he again volunteered and was placed on the “K” program, whose objectives were induced amnesia and orthostatic hypotension.   He states that he had seven documented exposures at Edgewood in May 1958, but in November only three, that one test had been obliterated by magic marker and another was missing.  He states that the CIA informed him that “mind control” clinical records generated under project MKULTRA were retained by the institutions that did the research.  He elaborates on this information concerning his records.

He states that the Army placed a normalized personality inventory graph in his file in November 1958, and a doctor, in collusion with others, left “psychiatric” blank.  He states that in May 1958 they found manic, paranoid, and borderline psychopath profiles.  In February 1998 he was retested and has the same profiles now as he did then, only they have worsened.  The psychochemicals administered [in 1958] might have amplified and/or aggravated his conditions, contributing to the destruction of his mental health and that of his future offspring. 

He also states that his cardiogram was deemed normal by manipulation and purposeful oversight in 1958, and his sinus bradycardia and his records in 1981 and 1992 clearly indicate that the military medical system was guilty of dereliction of duty, incompetence, and conspiratorial in order to use him for its “K” program experiments.    

The applicant states that two individuals, one a Harvard Research Fellow, and one Colonel Dreisbach, who was at Edgewood during his tours, have said that questionable tests were conducted.  He cites testimony by a former chief of he chemical corps concerning the effects of psychochemicals.  

He states that during a pre discharge physical in 1959 he checked several boxes, to include “nervous trouble”, “cramps in legs”, “ear, nose, and throat” troubles, whose symptoms correlate with the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology findings of 1985.  He states that he was pressured to write “I am in good health” on his physical record.  Within two years after his release, he had two operations.
He was discharged, and apparently to preclude the return of a medical liability into the Army, they placed the code “NEFR” (not eligible for reenlistment) on his DD Form 214, although he was allowed to complete his military service obligation.  He served in the CTARNG and had responsibility for nuclear weapons as part of a two man team.  During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis they did not activate him, and he requested a belated decoration for his service, but was informed that the CTARNG had a policy against giving civilian decorations.

The applicant continues by outlining the problems he had obtaining his experimentation records, and stating in effect, they showed that information was kept from him, and that he was a victim of file purging and/or alteration and records obliteration, in order to deprive him of discovering what other agents were administered, and what his long term medical or physical health might be.
He further states that his personnel records were either lost or destroyed, that he had several security clearances, but the FBI and the Army Intelligence Command had no records on him.  He states that a fire destroyed records in St. Louis in 1973, and CIA MKULTRA documents were destroyed at the same time. 

He comments on his problems in obtaining records from Fort Detrick in Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground, and the Army Medical Command, concerning the experiments.  He states that he spoke to the National Research Council.  He states that the Army Medical Command deliberately and fraudulently concealed facts. 

He states that he has been the victim of conspiracy, extortion, malpractice, negligence, violation of medical ethics, fraud, false statements, assault and battery, cruelty and maltreatment, destruction of and/or withholding and concealment of information potentially vital to his health and welfare.  He states that there has been less than overall good faith in supplying documents under the freedom of information act.

The applicant cites the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology reports concerning groups of men exposed to psychochemicals and its effects, and believes that the NRC was not given files by the Army because something happened to him and others in November 1958. 

The applicant continues by citing the reasons he should obtain mandatory inpatient and outpatient care by the VA, and special compensation by the DOD, DA, and the VA.  He takes exception to an apparent VA ruling that stated that “mere” exposure did not qualify under disability laws, saying that he was not “merely” exposed, but administered toxic agents, the duration, dosages, and long term effects of which are unknown.  In addition in 1963 he was exposed to chemicals while at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  

He states that he expects to be decorated based on his actions during his two tours at Edgewood, and that the commendation that state “above and beyond the call of duty” are words generally reserved for recipients of the Medal of Honor.

He states that information indicates that records were destroyed, suggesting that evidence was harmful to the party responsible for its destruction or obliteration.  He states that in addition to the exposure at Edgewood and Fort McClellan, he had chronic elector magnetic and radiological exposures from 1960-1969 when he was a radar technician.    

He states that the medical command, et al, refuses to supply the Edgewood experiment rosters described by the NRC or to obtain them from the NRC.  He states that he was an unwitting subject in experiments resulting in substantial violations  of his rights, that he has been subjected to negligence, misrepresentation, and emotional distress.  The government concealed acts giving rise to his claim, and he has filed a VA claim and has petitioned this Board.
 
In a 10 May 1998 letter to an official in the Army Medical Command, he takes exception to supposedly erroneous statements made by that official concerning him, states that that official may have lied to the President, and continues by recounting his efforts with the Army Medical Command in obtaining records, rosters, publications, and so forth.  In this letter, he accuses the Medical Command official of misrepresentation, dishonesty, and prevarication.  He requested that that official describe the “K” program at Edgewood in November 1958 and relate if it was part of a CIA project; and requested a copy of the roster furnished to the NRC under his volunteer number. 

In a 29 July 1998 letter to a member of this agency the applicant provides much of the same information and arguments which he later provided to the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army in August 1998.  He states that millions of dollars were spent on a study some twenty-five years after the fact, and still the prestigious National Academy of Sciences cannot predict long term health hazards.  He states that he was clearly physically/mentally unfit and inadvertently and/or improperly discharged from the service without treatment for illnesses discovered, because that information was withheld by the controllers at the Army Chemical Warfare School at Edgewood.  He was also unknowingly barred from potential of reenlistment without due cause.  He states that pre-experimentation testing, unbeknownst to him, revealed that he had manic paranoid personalities (as shown by an MMPI test), and that he was a borderline psychopath(?) (as indicated by an IPAT (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing); and a cardiogram was concluded with “a borderline record” notation, though the doctors said it was nothing.  He also states that he was promised decorations [for his actions at Edgewood], and was promised VA medical care.  He states that he should not have been allowed to volunteer for medical experiments because he was only 17 years old; consequently, the experiments were illegal.  He was subjected to EA 1476, a psychochemical creating orthostatic hypotension.  He was rated A+ for testing purposes, when in fact, he never should have been used for tests, and that the Army tested him despite the psychological profiles in his file.  His two children are both in therapy and medicated.  Had he the information that he discovered in 1997, more thought might have been given to having children.  He states that in his 12 year military career he never even received a simple marksman’s badge.  He has made application for a number of decorations.  He states that he was clearly physically/mentally unfit and inadvertently and/or improperly discharged from the Army without treatment for illnesses discovered, because that information was withheld.  He was unknowingly barred from potential reenlistment without due cause.  He states that this Board must expunge the erroneous November 1958 psychological profile entries in his file [which show him to be mentally fit?], because the February 1998 record confirmed the May 1958 findings of a physical profile.

He states that he did receive the National Defense Service Medal, the Expert Qualification Badge with carbine bar, the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with rifle bar, and the Missileman 1st Class Badge from the Army Reserve Personnel Command on 13 November 1997; and that the Connecticut National Guard corrected his final discharge to reflect his permanent rank of Staff Sergeant E-6, and awarded him the “Medal of Merit”.  

The applicant provides a history of the experiments at Edgewood, his involvement in them, and broad information, which he has extracted from various government documents, biographies of prominent individuals, research studies, and the like, concerning the MKULTRA program, LSD experiments, the “K” program, etc.

The applicant provides a laundry list of his ailments and medical problems, which he states may have been caused by the experiments (which he describes, to include the drugs and chemical agents that were administered to him and/or that he was exposed to) that was conducted on him in 1958.  He also provides information in which he states came from an Army 1980 LSD follow-up study of interviews and medical evaluations of those known to have been LSD exposed, providing clinical observations and revelations from that study, whose symptoms correlate with the symptoms which he has. 

Enclosed with his letter is a copy of a letter from the son of Colonel Dreisbach, who was in charge of research programs at Edgewood.  That son of Colonel Dreisbach stated that his father had sought psychiatric counseling to deal with the conflict resulting from his oath as an officer to follow orders versus his oath as a doctor of medicine with regard to the research on human beings.   

He also encloses a statement from an individual who stated that he volunteered for experiments at Edgewood, and that he was told that the volunteers would receive an award for participation in experiments, and would be awarded all VA medical assistance.

With this letter he provides a chronological record of his service, to include his training and assignments.

The applicant provides a paper, which he entitles “Experiment Unknown”, somewhat detailing the “K” experiments and the CIA MKULTRA programs, citing congressional records, the involvement of the CIA and the FBI and other agencies in these programs, to include the Army’s LSD experiments.  He gives a history of the MKULTRA program, his involvement with the program in 1958, and information from agencies and individuals concerning these experiments, and other experimental programs.  The applicant states that his exposure/administration of these drugs and/or chemicals may have been or be the cause of a number of his physical and medical ailments, which he lists.  He also lists symptoms supposedly presented to military authorities by those known to have been LSD exposed, stating that they amazingly correlate with those [symptoms] that he has, or has had.

The applicant lists the following experiments in which he was involved, the drugs and/or chemical agents in which he was administered  and/or exposed to, and other conditions which he encountered during his active duty and National Guard service, which might have caused the medical problems that he now has.  He lists some history of those experiments, the symptoms and effects of the drugs and agents, quotes extensively from documents, especially National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology papers, concerning those drugs and agents, and provides information concerning his involvement with the experiments and conditions that he was exposed to during his military career. 

•	Experiment “Unknown” [obliterated by magic marker and possibly others purged] – believed to have been a psychochemical/K Field (knockout) drug program
•	Blood Test – Pathology, clinical data sheet missing
•	CS EA 1799
•	CN
•	DM T-792 Adamsite
•	GB EA 1208 Sarin
•	EA 1778
•	EA 1476 Psychochemical [Pot 203] 
•	H Mustard
•	Gasoline and Chemical dermatological burns (due to an immersion heater explosion)
•	Radiological/Radar/chronic electromagnetic exposures 
•	Lead solder fumes, asbestos shields, gasoline and oil fire and tobacco smoke and chemical vapors 
•	High decibel and other noise levels leading to tinnitis and chemical exposures leading to otitis
•	Dental-Oral-Ophthalmologic
•	Immunizations, other Systemic Invasions, and Tuberculosis
•	Medical

He provides information concerning his attempts to obtain documents and records from various sources, to include, the Army Personnel Center at St. Louis, the VA, the FBI, hospitals at installations where he served, the Connecticut military department, Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Army Medical Research and Material Command at Fort Detrick, and the Army Medical Command.

The applicant has provided over 200 pages of information gained from the internet (world wide web), concerning use of volunteers for Army Medical Research, Departmental government memorandums concerning medical research, some of which were once classified Top Secret, memorandums concerning security measures on CBR warfare, a 34 page 1987 memorandum of the President’s commission for the study of ethical problems in medicine and biomedical and behavioral research, DOD directives and records of meetings on biological and chemical warfare and the use of human experiments,   memorandums showing the CIA involvement, with the military departments, in experiments, to include the MKULTRA project and LSD experiments, a memorandum discussing the ethics of human experimentation in the medical and scientific literature, a document discussing the culpability and responsibility of leaders and directors with respect to the ordering of experimental programs and the implementation thereof, a memorandum concerning the ethical relativism and retrospective moral judgment prepared for the members of the advisory committee on human radiation experiments (as were many of the aforementioned memorandums), and a memorandum concerning application of DOD policies regarding research involving human subjects.  He provides a 1994 staff report prepared for the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs concerning military human experimentation protocol.  He provides excerpts from a Senate select committee report on MKULTRA, provides documents concerning the history and makeup of certain chemical weapons and their effects, to include LSD, nerve agents, mustard agents, tear gases (CN, CS, and CR), and arsines (to include adamsite).  The applicant provides a copy of a newspaper article concerning a soldier who was exposed to mustard gas and a gas called lewsite at Edgewood Arsenal in 1943, its effects on him, and his attempts to obtain disability benefits.

The applicant has highlighted sentences and paragraphs throughout the 200 plus pages, and some of these highlighted passages are quoted herewith:

•	From a 10 July 1962 memorandum, subject:  use of Volunteers for Army Medical Research.  “U.S. Army Chemical Center, Edgewood, Maryland.  Volunteers are recruited from various Army camps in the U.S.  Posters and bulletins inform the men that they may sign up for 30 days TDY and stress the importance and safety of the program. … most volunteers for this program are subjected to short experiments and suffer with little discomfort.”  References in this memorandum include a 25 February 1955 letter to TSGO from legal division concerning opinion on legal capacity to consent (ages     18-20) of troops.
•	A page from a GAO report on military testing.  “Military procedures have long required that the volunteers be fully informed of the nature of the studies in which they participate and the foreseeable risks.  However, prior to 1975, these procedures were not always followed.”
•	A 26 February 1953 Secretary of Defense memorandum to the secretaries of the service departments, subject:  use of Human Volunteers in Experimental Research.  “a.  The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”  “(1)  This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.  This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”  “(2)  The consent of the human subject shall be in writing; his signature shall be affixed to a written instrument setting forth substantially the aforementioned requirements and shall be signed in the presence of at least one witness who shall attest to such signature in writing.”
•	A 3 September 1952 memorandum to the chiefs of the military services, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, subject:  Security Measures on Chemical Warfare and Biological Warfare.  “The Joint Chiefs of Staff further consider that responsible agencies should:… Insure, insofar as practicable, that all published articles stemming from the BW or CW research and development programs are disassociated from anything which might connect them with U.S. military endeavor.”  
•	A 34 page June 1982 document from the President’s commission for the study of ethical problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, titled:  Compensating for Research Injuries:  The Ethical and Legal Implications of Programs to Redress Injured Subjects.  “Finally, in 1980, a WHO working group to develop international guidelines for human experimental concluded that ‘natural justice demands that every subject participating in medical research should have automatic entitlement to reasonable and expeditious compensation for any injury sustained as a result of participation’.”
•	A 21 December 1952 memorandum from the Armed Forces Medical Policy Council to the Secretary of Defense, subject:  Use of Human Volunteers in Experimental Research.  “It was resolved that the ten rules promulgated at the Nuremberg Trials be adopted as the guiding principles to be followed.”
•	A 9 December 1952 memorandum from the Committee on Chemical Warfare to the Director of Administration, OSD, subject:  Use of Human Volunteers in Experimental Research.  “This goes a step or two beyond the AFMPC recommendation in calling for a system of rewards for volunteers, and for recognition of government liability in case of accident.”  And, “the permissive statement should be subject to the interpretation that uniformed volunteers could be assigned to temporary duty at the experimental installation for the purpose of engaging in the program as test subjects.”
•	A 27 June 1994 memorandum from the advisory committee staff to members of the advisory committee on human radiation experiments.  “… the suggestion that paid volunteers be assigned to temporary duty at special sites raise the question whether such arrangements would have been in practical compliance with the principle that human subjects must be free to terminate their participation in an experiment at any time.”
•	A 27 June 1994 memorandum to the members of the advisory committee on human radiation experiments, subject:  Methodological Review of Agency Data Collection Efforts:  Initial Report on the Central Intelligence Agency Document Search.  “The possibility that the CIA itself engaged in human radiation experiments emanates from references in a 1963 CIA IG report on Project MKULTRA, which was a program ‘concerned with research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior’.”  And, “The CIA worked closely with the Army in conducting LSD experiments. … One of the three principal functions of the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army Biological Center at Camp Detrick, Maryland was to conduct ‘biological research for the CIA’.”
•	A memorandum to the advisory committee on human radiation experiments, subject:  Discussion of the Ethics of Human Experimentation in the Medical and Scientific Literature.  “whether obtaining informed consent from a lay person was truly possible given the complexity of medical science…” 
•	A 10 January 1995 memorandum to the advisory committee, subject:  Ethical Relativism and Retrospective Moral Judgment.  “If a wrong action is a violation of a person’s human rights, then the moral injury to that person is extremely basic and significant:  The person has not been treated in ways he is entitled to be treated simply by virtue of his humanity.”  And, “If, as appears to be the case, some experiments were conducted without informed consent, then at least this much can be said:  The Department of Defense was culpable  for failing to observe its own standards for human experimentation.” And, “by not making judgments of culpability concerning actions in the past few decades, we run the risks of setting a precedent that is both dangerous and irresponsible.”  And, “The mere passage of time does not in any way alter the validity of moral judgments.”
•	An 8 December 1994 staff report prepared for the committee on veterans’ affairs, U.S. Senate, concerning military human experimentation protocol.  Some of the findings and conclusions:  “For at least 50 years, DOD has intentionally exposed military personnel to potentially dangerous substances, often in secret.  DOD has repeatedly failed to comply with required ethical standards when using human subjects in military research during war or threat of war.  Army regulations exempt informed consent for volunteers in some types of military research.  DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical follow-up to those who participate in military research or are ordered to take investigational drugs.  The Federal Government has failed to support scientific studies that provide timely information for compensation decisions regarding military personnel who were harmed by various exposures.  Participation in military research is rarely included in military medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for service-connected disabilities from military research.  DOD has demonstrated a pattern of misrepresenting the danger of various military exposures that continues today.”  And, “…hundreds of soldiers were subjected to hallucinogens in experimental programs conducted by the DOD in participation with, or sponsored by, the CIA.”  And, “the evidence suggests that they have not been adequately monitored for adverse health effects after the experimental protocols end.”  And, “Working with the CIA, the Department of Defense gave hallucinogenic drugs to thousands of ‘volunteer’ soldiers in the 1950’s and 1960’s.”
•	A page from a Senate select committee report of MKULTRA.  “between 1955 and 1958 research was initiated by the Army Chemical Corps to evaluate the potential for LSD as a chemical warfare incapacitating agent.  In the course of this research, LSD was administered to more than 1,000 American volunteers who then participated in a series of tests designed to ascertain the effects of the drug on their ability to function as soldiers.  With the exception of … these and subsequent laboratory experiments to evaluate chemical warfare potential were conducted at the Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories, Edgewood, Maryland.  In 1958 a new series of laboratory tests were initiated at Edgewood. … phase of Material Testing Program EA 1729 to evaluate the intelligence potential of LSD, and included LSD tests on 95 volunteers.  As part of these tests, three structured experiments were conducted:  1.  LSE was administered surreptitiously at a simulated social reception to volunteer subjects who were unaware of the purpose or nature of the tests in which they were participating;  2.  LSD was administered to volunteers who were subsequently polygraphed; and 3.  LSD was administered to volunteers who were then confined to ‘isolation chambers’.”  And, “The surreptitious administration of drugs to unwitting subjects by the Army raises serious constitutional and legal issues…. The ‘consent’ forms which each American volunteer signed prior to the administration of LSD are a case in point.  These forms contained no mention of the medical and psychological risks inherent in such testing, nor do they mention the nature of the psychotropic drug to be administered:”  NOTE:  The words used in the consent form is then quoted, and these are the same words used in the consent form signed by the applicant in May 1958, and again in November 1958. 
        
In his separate applications for the following medals, documents, and/or correction to documents, he stated:

•	Distinguished Service Medal.  No nominations were made by the National Guard Bureau.  He stated in effect, that he should have been awarded this medal for participating in the Cuban missile crisis.  He provides a letter stating that he was at his radar control panel four on and four off continuously throughout the alert during the Cuban missile crisis.  He provides recommendations from three former comrades, copies of documents showing completion of correspondence courses, active duty for training orders, an order showing qualification with a rifle, letters of commendation, and the like.
•	NGB Form 55 (Certificate of Discharge) was not received.  He states that it was never mailed and he certainly did not receive it.
•	The initials NEFR should be removed from his DD Form 214.  He states that this code means not eligible for reenlistment and is unjust.
•	Certificate of discharge.  He states that it was never issued.
•	NGB Form 55 and NGB Form 22 list his rank as SP4 E-4.  He states that he had a permanent rank of SSG E-6 and accepted administrative reductions, and that those reductions were without prejudice.
•	Qualification badges for rifle, carbine, missiles, and wheeled vehicles.  He states that none were ever issued, and only two listed on his discharge forms. He provides a copy of an order showing he qualified as a marksman with the M-1 rifle in 1957, sharpshooter with the M-1 carbine in 1960, and marksman with a missile in 1963.  He includes a copy of a government motor vehicle ID card showing that he was qualified to drive a sedan, station wagon, carryall, three types of trucks, and a bus.  
•	Armed Forces Reserve Medal.  He states it was not issued because of a clerical error.  He provides a document showing that he had enlisted in the Army Reserve on 16 September 1957, and was ordered to active duty that same date.  He provides discharge documents from the Army National Guard to show that he had over 10 years of Reserve service.
•	Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.  He states that due to an administrative error he did not receive this medal for his participation in the Cuban missile crisis.  He states that the Secretary of Defense informed him that that medal was issued for that period, but he did not receive one.  He provides numerous documents, most of which are duplicates of the aforementioned documents, but also includes an order showing he was authorized military leave, a newspaper article showing that he was a scoutmaster of a boy scout troop, a letter showing an increase in his wage as a technician, and a copy of a letter showing that he had been chosen to enter training for a Peace Corps project. He provides copies of his selective service card, military ID card, membership card in the American Legion, and so forth.
•	National Defense Service Medal.  He states that he served during the Vietnam war until 1969, and should have received this medal.  He provides some of the aforementioned documents and a copy of an order showing he was a member of a character guidance council.  
•	Soldiers Medal.  He states that what he did when he was 17 was heroic, involving great personal risk, and the letter of commendation he received included the words “above and beyond the call of duty”, typical of the actions of a Medal of Honor recipient.  He provides copies of newspaper articles concerning gas experiments, a copy of the letter of commendation he received for his role in experiments at Edgewood, a copy of a document showing that he had to receive parental permission in order to enlist in the Army (his date of birth is 25 July 1940), a copy of his 5 May 1958 statement whereby he volunteered for experiments, copies of clinical records showing he participated in experiments, a copy of a letter of commendation he received in 1966 while on active duty at Fort Bliss, and other documents. 
•	Distinguished Service Cross.  He again cites the aforementioned letter of commendations, newspaper articles, and provides copies of other articles, and many of the aforementioned documents.  He stated that this was his second voluntary tour (of medical experiments) and he should receive this award.
•	Army Commendation Medal.  He states that he received a letter of commendation; however, because he was a student, he believes that his commander did not want to take the extra time to submit a recommendation for this decoration.  He cites his action when he was a charge of quarters and how he dealt with a suicide in the barracks.  He provides a document awarding him an MOS, copy of a meal card, a liberty pass, and other such documents.
•	Meritorious Service Medal.  He states that he received a letter of commendation (above) at Fort Bliss, endorsed by the local commander who failed to evaluate his overall career which would have led him to recommend him (the applicant) for that decoration.  He provides many of the documents previously cited, and other documents showing that he completed a CBR course and a GED college level course.  
•	Drivers and mechanics badge.  He states that he qualified on every vehicle in the inventory in 1967, but this information was not entered in his records.  He provides a copy of his driver qualification record.
•	NCO Professional Development Ribbon.  He did not receive this ribbon because of a clerical error.  He states that he went to the Fort McClellan CBR school and then trained at the Connecticut National Guard Military Academy. He was a drill instructor at Fort Bliss and assistant class leader.  He received certificates of training, completed correspondence courses, and received a letter of commendation. 
•	Drill Instructor Badge.  He states that he served as a drill instructor; however, because of a clerical error he was not issued this badge.  He states that his commanding officer at Fort Bliss, in 1965, placed him in charge of drill training.
•	Defense Distinguished Service Medal.  He states that the CTARNG unjustly chose not to publish citations for his period of service, which included service during the Cuban missile crisis.  He states that he served in a dual capacity, military/technician virtually every day at Nike sites from 1960 until 1969.  His efficiency reports were excellent.  
•	Defense Meritorious Service Medal.  He states that due to a general CTARNG policy, he was denied the opportunity to be nominated for this medal.  He provides a synopsis of his military career, the positions held, commendations received, education and training completed, and responsibilities incurred. 
•	Army Good Conduct Medal.  He states that the Good Conduct Medal is issued during war time for one year, and he was on active duty at Fort Bliss in 1965 but never received the award, apparently due to clerical error.

The applicant has furnished and included with his application volumes and volumes of documents from numerous sources, i.e., internet, containing thousands of pages, concerning medical experiments, use of volunteers, use of minors in medical experiments, the MKULTRA program, government research proposals and projects, reports on chemical weapons, LSD reports, bound publications on the possible long-term health effects of short-term exposure to chemical agents, documents describing the early years of the CIA and its director, and the CIA involvement in mind control, newspaper articles concerning medical experiments, statistics purporting to show the number and percentages of subjects reporting adverse effects from chemical warfare experiments at Edgewood Arsenal and other military installations, and individual cases files to include the different effects suffered by individuals involved in those experiments He has attempted to show a correlation between the ailments and medical conditions that he has now or has had and ailments and conditions that he states are caused by the various chemical agents he was exposed to. 

On 25 November 1998 the applicant submitted a summation, a 34 page document, and additional materials for the use of this Board.  Those additional materials include excerpts from meetings of the National Bioethics He has provided nothing to dispute this determination Advisory Commission concerning research involving persons with questionable decision making capability; a document from the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses on the health effects of low-level chemical warfare agent exposure; a paper on covert testing on human subjects by military intelligence groups; papers about CIA use of NAZI research; documents concerning marihuana, and its effects; a copy of an inquiry by a Canadian government commission into the non-medical use of drugs; a copy of a document concerning LSD experiments; documents concerning various chemicals that he was exposed to, their symptoms and effects; a report on nicotine as an addicting drug; a report on licit and illicit drugs, to include caffeine and heroin; reports on the toxicological chemistry of chemical substances, chemical sampling information, human radiation experiments and radiation health hazard and protection.  

The applicant states in his letter forwarding the summation and additional materials that he was still awaiting a reply from the CIA regarding a personal records search, and that his twenty year old son had made two suicide attempts this year (1998), causing him guilty feelings, and that his wife and he were hoping to hear from the Board soon.

In his summary, the applicant states that he received notification from the VA that his claims for medical care and compensation had been denied.  He reiterates that as a minor he was improperly and illegally used for medical experimentation. He states that doctors withheld borderline cardiogram results, and withheld serious finds  concerning psychological testing.  Medical personnel disregarded profiles in his volunteer file and placed a forged normal designated cardiogram and forged psychological profiles in his volunteer file in November 1958.  He was injected with substances unknown to him.  He was made to sign security statements which precluded him from seeking medical care at a later date.  His official files were altered and purged, and documents have and still are being withheld from him.  He was improperly separated from the Army in 1959 because his medical findings and admission by him on his outgoing physical were not addressed.  He was coerced into writing “I am good health” by deception. 

The applicant continues by recounting his military career, stating that a week after his arrival at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, he and others received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for allowing the bore of their weapons to rust, but a ordnance inspector determined that the bores were pitted, and not their fault.  Because they went over the first sergeant’s head he saw to it that they would not receive the Good Conduct Medal.  He became a regular smoker and coffee drinker in the Army, where those addictive minor vices were instilled as habitual, though acceptable, manly behavior.  He saw a regular dentist, who found seventeen cavities, had them filled with silver mercury, and had four impacted wisdom teeth removed.  He bled excessively.  The nature and depth of the fillings and the wisdom teeth removal caused later tooth splitting and cracking, but bone loss into motion later requiring braces and lower gum recession.  He also suffered second degree burns as a result of an accidental explosion with lighting a gasoline fired immersion heater, resulting in dermatological discoloration.  

The applicant goes on to describe his involvement as a medical research experimentation volunteer, the problems that he states that he had with that research, with his records, the information contained in his records, problems in obtaining records and documents.  He goes on to comment on the various experiments conducted, the chemicals used, and their effects.  He recounts his efforts in obtain records, information, medical care for himself, awards, in his letters to the President, members of congress, the VA, the Medical Command, the Secretary of the Defense, and this Board.  He concludes by citing his post service endeavors, to include his ten year research project, culminating in a 1,300 page work, “Visions Aids in History”, which he donated to various institutions, his donation of antique vision aids to the Smithsonian Institution, his chair of the Korea Vietnam Memorial Committee and his work as organizer of the World War II Monument Committee in Milford, Connecticut, and the honors bestowed by the VFW and the American Legion.
 
On 7 June 1999 the applicant forwarded additional documents, stating that he had not yet heard from the board, hoping that the reason was because the Board was conducting an intensive investigation.  He states, in submitting this update, if the previous submissions have not yet been utilized, to destroy them, in favor of this version, which he states contains much new information.  He also requests a second award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.  The applicant has expanded somewhat on the aforementioned 34 page summation, i.e., this version is now 39 pages.  He reiterates the fact that he was a minor at the time of the experiments in June 1958, that the courts deem the signature of a minor invalid, thus his consent to experiments was null and void when signed, and the Army, et all, is culpable for illegal experimentation on a minor.  He goes on to say, that if the Army believed that the contracts signed by a minor were in fact legal, then consideration must given to compensation; and, he entered the Army with an eighth grade education and was in no position to form a sufficiently clear opinion of the risks involved in the experiments.  He was a ward of the Army, which was charged with the legal representation of a minor.  As a surrogate parent, it wrongfully passed on a right it did not possess by allowing him to submit for experimentation.  He states that the consent form that he signed was identical to the one shown in the Congressional Record (1977).  That document contained CIA MK Ultra testimony, clearly demonstrating that the CIA and the Army were working in concert via contractual relations in which he was an unwitting participant. Individual rights were subordinated to National Security considerations.  He goes on to talk about the experiments, that his records were forged, and he should never have been allowed to volunteer.  He states that the acts of people at Edgewood sealed his fate for the next forty plus years, that he may have been treatable in 1958, but their tortuous malpractice deprived him of the opportunity.  He states that this travesty and the absence of counseling prevented him from making an informed decision regarding the genetic risk in procreation.  He states that both his sons are medicated and under psychiatric care, that his older brother is medicated and under psychiatric care, and that he had a son born in 1961 who was medicated for year, exhibiting epileptic type seizures.  His children have the right to sue the government for personal injury compensation.  

He continues by calling attention to his pre-discharge physical in 1959 and how the symptoms that he stated that he then had, i.e., ear, nose, and throat trouble, nervous troubles, correlated with later findings of a study which discovered that half the men admitted to Army hospitals for those symptoms were admitted within the first five years after testing at Edgewood.  He was clearly unfit, but erroneously, stating that he was coerced into stating that he was in good health, or he would have to be indefinitely held.  He signed under duress.  

He talks on his enlistment papers, that he had a six year enlistment, and after his release (after 2 years of active duty), his DD Form 214 showed that he still had   6 years remaining, indicating that his 201 file and medical records might have remained at Edgewood and not forwarded to Fort Leonard Wood, where he was improperly and wrongfully released.

He talks about his actions during Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and the fact that the CTARNG policy precluded publication of civilian decorations from the Department of Defense.  He states that he had applied to this Board for two DOD awards and has submitted recommendations from four former fellow soldiers.  He states that he dealt with a suicide situation while on active duty at Fort Bliss, that he had various duties and served in many capacities as a National Guard soldier, that he served as a drill instructor, but never received his badge, completed correspondence course, and so forth.  

He was exposed to nuclear weaponry and received chronic multiple long term radar electromagnetic wave exposures.  He was exposed to smoke, lead solder fumes, and asbestos.  The National Guard sent him to a two week fire college where he literally ate smoke from oil and gasoline fires.  He was using a flame thrower in 1963, exposing himself to noxious fumes.  He attended the CBR school and was exposed to addition chemicals.

He talks about his current medical concerns, including recurrent para-tracheal lipoma, allergy/sinus like symptoms, leg cramps, mental condition, and so on.

He submits a request for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, stating that that medal was issued from 1 July 1958 to 1 November 1958, that his unit was ready, packed and awaited movement to the railhead for departure to Lebanon, and that his immunization record shows a yellow fever entry.

He provides a document entitled the comparative effectiveness of four riot control agents, a letter from the CIA informing him that a search did not identify any information concerning him.  He provides documents concerning Soviet brainwashing techniques, documents concerning volunteers for military studies and the exposure of military personnel to potentially dangerous substances; papers indicating that the federal government had failed to support scientific studies that provide timely information for compensation decisions regarding military personnel who were harmed by various exposures; a document titled mental health evaluations of members of the Armed Forces, a 1983 document titled protection of human subjects in DOD supported research, and a 1953 Army Chief of Staff memorandum concerning the use of volunteers. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for six years on 16 September 1957. The remarks section of his enlistment document states “IMMEDIATE ACTIVE DUTY”.  In a separate statement, which he signed, he agreed to enter on          24 months active duty within 120 days of his enlistment.  A DD Form 373, Consent, Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian, shows that on 27 August 1957 his mother had given consent for him to enlist.   He was 17 years old at that time, his date of birth being 25 July 1940. 

A 22 April 1958 travel order directed the applicant to proceed from Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to the Army Chemical Center in Maryland on 4 May 1958.  He left that center and returned to Fort Leonard Wood on 2 June 1958.  
 
In a 5 May 1958 statement prepared at the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories, at the U.S. Army Chemical Center in Maryland, the applicant signed a Volunteer’s Participation Agreement, in which he stated that he had read and understood a document entitled, “Medical Research Volunteer Program”, and that the general nature of the experiments he had volunteered to participate in had been explained from the standpoint of possible hazards to his health.  He certified that there had been no coercion, element of fraud or deceit, undue moral suasion or other adverse pressure brought to bear in his volunteering for that duty and that he had done so of his own free will, completely award of all hazards, rewards, and recognition involved.  On 3 November 1958 he completed and signed a similar agreement. 

A May 1958 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was qualified for experiments.

Documents provided by the applicant show that he was administered various diagnostic tests, i.e., the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (dated 5 May 1958).  One of these tests has the notations, “Cooperative, self-confident, borderline psychopath (?)”, on it.  An electrocardiographic record has the remarks, “Borderline Record, Suggestive but not diagnostic of Incomplete, Right Bundle Brauch Block”.  (NOTE:  The words are difficult to read, and may not be entirely accurate).  Clinical records show that he was subjected to various chemical agents in May 1958, and again in November and December of that year.  A first page of a November 1958 report of medical examination omits any clinical evaluation (normal or abnormal), in the psychiatric block of that form.

On 2 June 1958 the applicant, then assigned to the 643d Engineer Company at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, received a letter of commendation from a Colonel Dreisbach, the Director of Medical Research at the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories, Army Chemical Center, Maryland, for his participation in the military volunteer research program.  He was commended for exposing himself to experiments above and beyond the call of duty.

A 23 October 1958 travel order directs the applicant and others to proceed from Fort Leonard Wood to the Army Chemical Center on 31 October 1958 for the purpose of volunteering for research.

In a November 1958 report of medical examination the applicant was qualified for the [medical experiment] volunteer program.  The portion of that report concerning “psychiatric” (normal or abnormal), was unchecked.

On 5 December 1958 he again received a letter of commendation from a Colonel Dreisbach for his participation in the military volunteer research program and again commended for exposing himself to experiments above and beyond the call of duty. 

The applicant includes some medical records of two former fellow soldiers who participated in experiments at Edgewood; and letters from both those soldiers   who stated that they too were medical research volunteers, who with the applicant and others, participated in a clinical study which they were told was to test the effects of an incapacitating drug.  They were never told what the drug was, and were given physical exams and psychological tests before, during, and after the drug administration.  They did recall that they were told that someday that might receive a medal for their participation.  One of the soldiers stated that serious consideration should be given to the applicant’s request because he volunteered on two different occasions, and participated in more experiments than what he (the soldier) described.  Note:  Both of these soldiers were on the same set of travel orders as the applicant that placed them on TDY from Fort Leonard Wood to the Army Chemical Center in Maryland on 31 October 1958, and both participated in medical experiments.  In the report of medical examination conducted on both of these soldiers in November 1958 prior to the onset of the experiments, item number 42, psychiatric, on the form was unchecked, i.e., normal or abnormal, by the examining physician. 

In an 11 February 1959 letter to the applicant’s commanding officer, the post dental surgeon at Fort Leonard Wood requested that the applicant be placed on light duty because of extensive oral surgery performed on him.

In the report of medical history the applicant completed on 20 July 1959 he stated that he was in good health, did state that he had had, or did have, ear, nose, or throat trouble, cramps in his legs, tuberculosis, appendicitis, venereal disease, and nervous trouble, among other ailments.

The applicant was discharged on 15 September 1959 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He had 2 years of service.  At the extreme top of his DD Form 214, the letters, “NEFR”, were typed.  His DD Form 214 shows that his source of entry [into the Army on active duty] was that he had been called from Reserve duty. That document also shows that he was released from active duty and returned to Army Reserve to complete remaining service obligation of 6 years 0 months.     
The remarks section of that form states:  “PAR 9 AR 601-210 applies”.

A 4 March 1960 report of medical examination, completed for the purpose of enlistment in the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) indicates that he was qualified for enlistment with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 2 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that he was in good health.  That report indicates that he had diphtheria, mumps, and whooping cough in early childhood, with no complications, that he had an appendectomy at age 2, with no complications, that he needed contact lenses, and that he had a X-ray of his chest 3-8, pulmonary pathology and there was no evidence of active TBC. 

The applicant enlisted in the CTARNG for three years on 6 March 1960.  His   DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record) shows prior service in the Army from                16 September 1957 until his ETS on 15 September 1959, and in the Army Reserve from 16 September 1959 until 5 March 1960.  On 6 March 1963 he extended his enlistment in the CTARNG for three years.
The applicant received a certificate from the Army Chemical Corps School at Fort McClellan, Alabama, showing that he completed the requirements for the perception of CS on 11 January 1963.  He received a certificate showing that he completed the CBR enlisted course on 1 February 1963.

On 3 June 1963 the applicant was appointed a cadet of the Connecticut National Guard Military Academy; however, on 6 September 1963 he was relieved from that appointment due to his resignation.

A 4 March 1964 report of medical examination indicates that he was medically qualified for retention with a physical profile series of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that he was in good health.  That report indicated that he had a deviated septum that was repaired in 1963 with no complications, an appendectomy in 1942, and a pilonidal cyst removed in 1962 with no complications.  He indicated that he also had a nose operation at the age of 23. 

On 18 December 1964 he was ordered to full time training duty with the Air Defense School at Fort Bliss, Texas, with a reporting date of 11 January 1965. 

On 2 January 1965 he applicant extended his enlistment to a period of five years, making his new ETS (expiration of term of service) 5 March 1968.

On 8 February 1966 the applicant, then a Staff Sergeant assigned to a missile battery of the CTARNG, received a letter of commendation from the commanding officer of the 2nd Enlisted Student Battery at the Army Air Defense School, Fort Bliss, Texas, for his outstanding performance of duty with that unit during his assignment from 8 January 1965 to 17 December 1965.  

On 8 March 1966 he again extended his enlistment, making his new ETS 
5 March 1969.

Performance appraisals contained in the applicant’s records, to include one dated in September 1967, show that he was not only a soldier in the CTARNG, but also a unit technician.

The applicant was discharged from the CTARNG and as a Reserve of the Army in the rank of Specialist Six E-6 on 16 October 1967 because of his termination of employment as an air defense technician.  His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation) shows his rank at the time of his discharge as SP6 E-6, the highest grade held SSG E-6, weapon qualification as an expert with the caliber .30 carbine, and no decorations or awards.  The NGB Form 22 indicates that the NGB Form 55 was mailed to him at his last known address.  The applicant signed the NGB Form 22.

A 3 March 1968 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was qualified for reenlistment with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that he was in good health.  He indicated on that form that he had his tonsils [out] at the age of 17 and a circumcision at the age of 27.

On 4 March 1968 the applicant reenlisted in the CTARNG for two years.  On that same date he was administratively reduced without prejudice to SP5 E-5 to fill a unit vacancy.  On 1 December 1968 he again was administratively reduced without prejudice to SP4 E-4 to fill a unit vacancy.

The applicant submits a copy of his DA Form 348 (Driver Qualification Record) which indicates that he was qualified to drive a sedan and station wagon, a carryall, and various types of trucks. 

On 14 October 1969 he requested discharge from the CTARNG because of his resignation from the technician program.  He was discharged from the CTANRG and as a Reserve of the Army in the rank of SP4 on 10 November 1969.  His NGB Form 22 shows his highest grade held as SP6, that he qualified as a sharpshooter with the M1 rifle, and that NGB Form 55 was mailed to him at his last known address.  The applicant signed the form.  The applicant later received an Honorable Discharge Certificate which shows his rank as Staff Sergeant.  

The applicant has completed various service courses, to include Nike Ajax Package Training, CBR Enlisted Course at Fort McClellan, Alabama in 1963, map reading course, Nike Hercules Fire Control Systems Maintenance      Course, etc.

The applicant’s military records show no evidence of overseas service, neither while he was on active duty, nor during his service in the Army National Guard.

The applicant submits a copy of two newspaper articles from the Washington Post, which he states were dated 17 July and 24 July 1975, in which those articles indicate that volunteers, both civilian and military, were not informed they were part of Army experiments with LSD in the late fifties.

In an 18 July 1986 letter the Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, indicated that that agency was enclosing a copy of his complete medical volunteer records for the periods 4 May 1958 to     2 June 1958 and 2 November 1958 to 5 December 1958.  That letter indicated that the enclosure showed the experiments in which he participated and the chemicals/drugs used in those tests (On 27 June 1997 that agency forwarded to him two missing pages from that enclosure, and informed him that medical care of veterans was the responsibility of the VA, and suggested that he contact that agency if he believed he had ailments related to his exposure).  He again requested that agency research their records for additional files concerning him and was informed that the records previously provided were all that the institute possessed.  He wrote that agency again on 5 March 1998, again requesting information.  On 6 April 1998 that agency provided him a roster of volunteers and their exposures.  

A 13 January 1992 medical report indicates that the applicant was diagnosed as having diverticulosis.  A 15 April 1992 operative report shows that he underwent a left hemi-colectomy and anastomosis, left transverse colon to rectus sigmoid operation for this condition.  A 9 June 1980 medical report shows he had a swelling in his right ring finger and had episodes of right shoulder pain.  A 20 February 1981 report noted that he had a small mass on the left side of his neck, and that he was treated for an inflammation on the back of his tongue, which had been sore. That report indicated that he probably had a lipoma; and in April 1981 he had an operation  because of probable lipoma, left suprasternal notch.  A medical report in 1987 shows that he had fallen arches; report in 1993 shows pain in his right shoulder; report  on 27 June 1997 shows that he was seen for a second opinion regarding prophylactic treatment of tuberculosis, that he had a history of TB in 1942, and that he was being treated; report in 1998 shows pain in his left shoulder.  A 13 July 1998 report shows that he appeared to have a vascular calcification.

In February 1997 he requested from the VA to establish eligibility for VA health benefits as was told to him when he volunteered for medical experiments in 1958.   On 11 September 1997 the VA requested that he assist them in clarifying and developing his claim for disability compensation.  That office listed the conditions which the VA believed he was claiming, and informed him that mere exposure to testing agents, asbestos, or anything else, is not a disability under the law.  He had to claim and establish residual disabilities arising from such exposure.  He had to provide medical evidence showing continuity of treatment and current existence of each and every condition claimed, and the burden of proof for each and every condition was on him.  What followed were numerous letters from him to the VA concerning his claim, and replies from the VA, the latest being on 3 February 1998 informing him that they were still processing his claim.

On 10 March 1997, in support of the applicant’s request for the Distinguished Service Medal, a retired Sergeant First Class, recommended to this Board that the applicant receive that award, stating that he served with the applicant in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis at the Milford, Connecticut Nike Ajax site, and that the applicant, then a specialist five (E-5), was serving as the senior fire control radar operator throughout a time period that they perceived to be imminent war with the Soviet Union, and remained on alert status for what seemed like weeks, working around the clock in four hour shifts, and hooked up and actually ready to fire their missiles.  The applicant received like letters of recommendation, dated in March 1997, for this award from three other individuals with whom he served during this period.
   
That same retired NCO, on 10 March 1997, recommended to this Board that the applicant be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal for the aforementioned actions, and for his performance at Fort Bliss, Texas.

The applicant submits four 1997 letters from individuals who served with him  during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, recommending him for the Distinguished Service Medal/Cuban missile service medals.   
 
In a 16 April 1997 letter to the applicant, the Assistant Chief of the National Guard Bureau informed him that they were not able to process a decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service or a Meritorious Civilian Service award because the nominations were required to be submitted within 6 months after the completion of the period to be cited, and because an individual would normally have been recognized by previous honorary awards.

On 5 August 1997 the VA at the Connecticut Healthcare System informed the applicant that they had no information concerning his inquiry.

In a 15 September 1997 letter to the President, the applicant put forward his case, and providing much of the same information, and request for relief as heretofore detailed.  In addition to his cited requests for relief to this Board, he also requested a vested rights civil service retirement and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.  He enclosed with his letter five binders.  The documents contained in those binders contain much of the information, to include his self authored recommendations for awards, contained in the above paragraphs.  New information includes documents indicating that the applicant, an optician with a doctorate of philosophy degree, had received numerous letters of thanks and appreciation from officials in libraries, institutions, museums, in this country, and from countries around the world, for furnishing them his work, “Visual Aids in History”, a two volume work on the history of eyeglasses, contact lenses, and other visual aids.  He also lists his public and private service contributions to include his educational and other cultural endeavors, his community and cultural philanthropy, and his public and world endeavors.  He includes a lengthy newspaper article, showing that he was selected as the parade marshal in 1998.  
On 24 November 1997 the applicant was awarded the Medal of Merit by the State of Connecticut Military Department.

On 18 February 1998 the Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground replied to the applicant’s request for information under the freedom of information action, informing him that the historical records at that command were researched and there were no records pertaining to him.

On 27 February 1998 the Army Medical Command at Fort Sam Houston informed him, in response to his freedom of information act inquiry, that Project MK-ULTRA was the CIA program of research in behavioral modification, which took place from 1953 to 1964.  It was an umbrella project under which there were numerous subprojects for research, among other things, on drugs and behavioral modification.  That agency stated it could only find one mention of the letter “K” on the internet, that of a prepared statement of the CIA director in 1977 to a Senate committee, in which he mentioned a 1957 IG report of the technical service division, “research being done on the “K” (knockout) material, alcohol tolerance, and hypnotism.”

On 9 March 1998 the Army Medical Command, in response to his request under the freedom of information act, informed the applicant that they had no information that would identify Edgewood volunteers in connection with any illnesses they are now, or have been treated for, by the VA, and had no information that would either confirm or deny any exposure to him or the other  36 men in his “class” might have experienced.  Information previously provided from his Edgewood files were all that were available.  That command stated that over the past several months a concerted effort had been made to research and provide him copies of documents and records; and since they could not provide any further information, and further correspondence from him [of this nature] would be filed without action. 

On 2 April 1998 the CIA informed the applicant that most of the records concerning the MKULTRA program were destroyed; however, the CIA never maintained clinical records; those records were retained by physicians and institutions responsible for individual projects.  The CIA informed him that they had conducted exhaustive searches and reviews on human behavior, including the testing of LSD, and had located and released 11,336 pages of material on the general subject of human behavior studies under Project MKULTRA, mostly dealing with financial records.  The CIA provided him a photocopy of a transcript of CIA testimony at a joint hearing in 1977 before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources of the United States Senate.

The applicant provides a 5 May 1958 answer sheet to a 16 P.F. test, with a handwritten inscription:  “cooperative, self-confident, Borderline Psychopath?”.  His name was on this answer sheet.  He provides a graph chart concerning himself, which shows his scores on a test called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), dated 5 May 1958.  He includes two pages of an information paper, source and date unknown, explaining the meaning of the MMPI and the criteria used in selecting or not selecting volunteers for psychochemical tests based on the result of the MMPI, and the effects on volunteers on DMPH testing.

The applicant provides an electrocardiographic  record of himself, dated            10 May 1958, and a copy of a clinical record with notations from 12-29 May 1958, showing that he was exposed to CN and to 1778 (chemical agents?) in a gas mask and in an aerosol chamber.  He encloses a copy of a test summary which shows that he was tested in November and December of 1958 – “aerosol-riot gas testing”, “blood test-Pathology”, and “Ex; Med&Neurs” (?).  Again, he has a clinical record for November and December 1958 showing that he was exposed to a combination of DM-T792 in the wind tunnel, and administered a dose of EA 1476.

The applicant provides pages from a document, titled “History of the Edgewood Testing Program”.

On 7 August 1998 the VA notified the applicant that he was in a Discretionary category for VA health care, and as a veteran in the Discretionary category, he had to indicate if he agreed to pay VA deductibles and copayments for his care.  

In a 22 September 1998 letter to this Board, The Adjutant General of Connecticut, in providing information on the applicant, stated that the applicant was a federal civil service technician and at the time of the Cuban missile crisis there were four Nike Ajax batteries in the state, with more than 200 personnel providing the same duties as the applicant as a technician, with no unit or individual on active duty or even on National Guard drill status.  He continued by saying that the idea that the applicant earned the Distinguished Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, etc, was ludicrous.  He stated that the applicant had developed Connecticut as a war zone; however, the particular function they performed during the Cuban missile crisis was the same function performed a minimum of one week a month from 1960-1969 until the missile program was eliminated.  He went on to say that he personally knew the applicant and in order to resolve the situation made him a SSG rather than a SP6 and also awarded him a state Medal of Merit for his service. 

In a 18 December 1998 psychological evaluation, a New York licensed psychologist indicated that the applicant was administered psychological testing while in the Army and the MMPI test reflected high scores on mania and paranoia, and an IPAT reflected psychopathic and borderline personality traits.  The applicant further noted that 6 months later, after the medical testing, he was evaluated as normal.  The psychologist indicated that present elevations, well above the level of normality, on the psychopathic deviate and mania subtests were not inconsistent with earlier reports (5 May 1958) of elevations on those scales.  The doctor stated that the applicant appeared to be an impulsive individual, and his responses to tests confirmed a hedonistic orientation, with a penchant for dangerous or deviant behavior.  Low self-esteem and depression also appeared, evidenced by his responses to test items, and he appeared to feel estranged and alienated from others, which was associated with fear of intimacy and feeling suspicious of others.  Deep paranoid tendencies were reflected in projections onto others of evil intent.  MMPI results indicated that he believed that he had special mystical powers.  In the interpersonal sphere, he appeared to be manipulative, fearful of the motives of others, insecure and distant, and at times hostile and competitive.  He considered the people he worked with as fairly incompetent.  He showed limited introspective ability and a general mistrust of others.  MMPI responses suggested low motivation for therapy and a tendency to act out problems rather than attempting to understand or solve them. 

Army Regulation 600-8-2 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 1-14 states that each recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  No military decoration, except the Purple Heart will be awarded more than 3 years after the act or period of service to be honored.  These time limitations do not apply to retroactive and conversion awards made in confirmation of recognition of previously issued orders, letters, certificates or in exchange of decorations hereinafter authorized.  

Army Regulation 600-8-2, Chapter 2, prescribes DOD policies and procedures on awarding decorations and service awards.  It describes the various awards, the basis or eligibility requirements for the award, who is eligible to receive, and who is authorized to approved the award.  It tells how to prepare, submit, and process recommendations for decorations.  

•	The Defense Distinguished Service Medal is awarded by the Secretary of Defense to officers of the Armed Forces of the United States whose exceptional performance of duty and contributions to national security of defense have been at the highest level.
•	The Defense Meritorious Service Medal is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, after 3 November 1977, distinguished themselves by noncombat meritorious achievement or service.
•	The Army Forces Expeditionary Medal is authorized for U.S. military operations in designated areas during specific dates or time periods.  Personnel must be a bona fide member of a unit and engaged in the operation, and among other criteria, have served not less than 30 consecutive days in the area of operations, be engaged in actual combat, or duty which is equally as hazardous as combat, during the operation with armed opposition, regardless of time in the area, be recommended, or attached to a unit recommend for award of the medal. 

Chapter 3 provides information, policies, and procedures concerning Army awards and decorations, and states in pertinent part, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions by the commander having award approval authority.  Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient.  Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his manner of performance.  The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his organization will be the predominant factor. 
•	The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable an have involved risk of live so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his comrades
•	The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded to any person who has distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility.  The performance must be such as to merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional.  Exceptional performance of normal duty will not alone justify an award of this decoration.
•	The Soldier’s Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguished himself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.
•	The Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to any member of the Army Forces of the United States who, while serving in a noncombat area after                 16 January 1969, has distinguished himself by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. 
•	The Army Commendation medal is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguishes himself by heroism, meritorious achievement or service.

Chapter 4 prescribes the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, and states in pertinent part, that the medal is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  One of the qualifying periods of service for the award is upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, of less than 3 years but more than 1 year (for first award only).

Chapter 5 provides for award of service (campaign) medals and service ribbons.

•	The NCO Professional Development Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981 and is awarded for successful completion of designated NCO professional development courses.  Once a service member has been awarded the NPDR upon graduation from Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), or Primary Leadership Development Course-Reserve Components, subsequent appropriate numerals will be awarded to identify completion of higher level NCO Education System Courses.
•	The Armed Forces Reserve Medal is awarded for honorable and satisfactory service as a member or former member of one or more of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces, for a period of 10 years.  Such years of service must have been performed within a period of 12 consecutive years.  For service after 1 July 1949, a minimum of 50 retirement points must be earned.  Service in a regular component of the Armed Forces is excluded.  

Chapter 8 provides for award of badges and tabs, to include combat and special skill badges, and marksmanship badges.  Recommendations for awards of badges will be submitted through command channels to the commander authorized to make the award. 

•	The Driver and Mechanic Badge is awarded to drivers, mechanics, and special equipment operators to denote the attainment of a high degree of skill in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles.  To qualify for award of a driver badge, a soldier must, in addition to qualifying for a possessing a current OF 346, occupy a duty position with title of driver or assistant driver of Army vehicles for a minimum of 12 consecutive months, or during at least 8,000 miles and had no Army motor vehicle accident or traffic violation; perform satisfactorily for a minimum period of 1 year as an active qualified driver instructor or motor vehicle driver examiner.  To qualify for award of a mechanic badge, a soldier must pass aptitude tests and complete the standard mechanics’ course with a “skilled” rating or have demonstrated possession of sufficient previous experiences as an automotive or engineer equipment mechanic to justify such a rating and be assigned to primary duty as an automotive or engineer equipment mechanic to justify such a rating.
•	The Drill Sergeant Identification Badge is awarded by the Commandant of the Drill Sergeant School upon successful completion of the Drill Sergeant course and assignment as a drill sergeant to a training command.

Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, prescribes instructions for the completion of the DD Form 214, and states that the entry NEFIR (not eligible for immediate reenlistment) or EFIR (eligible for immediate reenlistment) will be placed above item 1 on all copies of the form.

Army Regulation 601-210, then in effect, establishes the qualifications for enlistment and reenlistment in the Regular Army.  Paragraph 9 of that regulation lists those classes of personnel who are ineligible for enlistment or reenlistment unless the disqualification is waived.  One of those classes is those whose DD Form 214 includes the statement in the remarks section, “Par 9, AR 601-210 applies”. 

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

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 Army discourages self-aggrandizement and precludes individuals from recommending themselves for awards, and the Board notes that the applicant has recommended himself for the majority of the awards and decorations that he is requesting, and provides the reasons, with the documentation, that he should receive those awards and decoration.  He has, however, been recommended to this Board for the Distinguished Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal, by individuals who served with him in the early 1960’s, almost 40 years ago.  The regulation concerning awards requires that a recommendation must be submitted within 2 years of the act, achievement, etc.  The applicant has not shown any good reason why an exception should be made to this requirement.  Therefore, his requests for those awards for which he has been recommended, for his actions almost four decades ago, are denied.  

2.   Furthermore, and in addition to denial of those awards because of the regulatory time limitations, the applicant does not meet the criteria for not only those awards, but the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (awarded only to officers), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (awarded to individuals who distinguished themselves after 3 November 1977), or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (That medal is awarded to soldiers who were engaged in actual combat, or duty which is equally as hazardous).  The applicant was not an officer, had no military service after 1969, and not only did not served in an area of operations, engaged in combat, but has no record of any overseas service.  

3.  The Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s military service, his honorable service on active duty from 1957 to 1959, and his service in the National Guard until his discharge in 1969, to include his time on active duty at Fort Bliss.  The applicant was a responsible soldier who performed his duties well.  It is the considered opinion of this Board, however, that his performance did not merit any of the aforementioned awards for which he has been recommended and which he has requested.  This is especially true of the Distinguished Service Medal, an award reserved for those persons in a duty of great responsibility.  Examples that come to mind are the Chief of Staff of the Army, the commander of a major Army command, and so forth.  The Board also believes that had the applicant merited award of the Meritorious Service Medal or the Army Commendation, then he would have been so recognized by his commanders.  The applicant has provided no good reason to believe otherwise.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he is entitled to award of the Soldiers Medal is not accepted.  He was not recommended for that award, the time limitations for a recommendation has long since expired, and he has provided no justification to this Board that his actions at Edgewood in 1958, while commendable, were heroic and meet the criteria for that decoration.

5.  The applicant’s request for award of the Distinguished Service Cross is preposterous and is denied forthwith.

6.  The applicant does not meet the requirement for award of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal.  He served as a member of the Army National Guard from          6 March 1960 to 16 October 1967 for a total of 7 years, 7 months, and 10 days; and again from 4 March 1968 to 10 November 1969, 1 year, 8 months, and         7 days.  A total of 9 years, 3 months, and 17 days of service.  He had not the required 10 years of service within a period of 12 consecutive years required for award of that medal.  

7.  The NCO Professional Development Ribbon was established on 10 April 1981.  The applicant had no military service after 1969.  He is not entitled to that ribbon.

8.  The applicant has shown that he was qualified to drive various classes of military vehicles; however, he has not shown that he meets the criteria for award of  either the driver or the mechanic badge.  He is not entitled to those badges.

9.  The applicant is not entitled to award of the Drill Sergeant Identification Badge.  He has provided no evidence that he attended the requisite drill sergeant course.  Nor does his record show assignment to a training command.  

10.  The applicant has been awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Expert Qualification Badge with carbine bar, the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with rifle bar, and the Missileman 1st Class Badge.  His requests for this medal and those badges have thus been satisfied. 

11.  The applicant has stated, “Because they went over the first sergeant’s head he saw to it that they would not receive the Good Conduct Medal.” [for his two year period of active service in1957-1959].  The expressed implication put forth by the applicant is that he was disqualified for award of that medal, and his       DD Form 214 does not show award of that medal.  The Board is therefore reluctant to award the Good Conduct Medal for this period of service.  The presumption of regularity is assumed.  His period of active service from               8 January 1965 to 17 December of that year is not a qualifying period for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  His request for this award is denied.

12.  The reason for the abbreviation “NEFR”, connoting that the applicant was not eligible for reenlistment, on his DD Form 214 in 1959, with the accompanying words in the remarks section of that form, “Par 9, AR 601-210 applies”, indicating that he was ineligible for reenlistment without a waiver, is unexplainable.  However, the applicant’s contention that the reason for this entry is that he was somehow medically unqualified for reenlistment as a result of the experiments that he underwent, or because tests taken prior to the experiments showed that he was unacceptable for reenlistment, is not accepted.  He has not shown proof. The applicant did reenlist and remained in the National Guard for almost ten years thereafter.  Absent any information to the contrary, the presumption of regularity is assumed. 

13.  The entry in the remarks section of his DD Form 214, “Released from active duty and returned to Army Reserve to complete remaining service obligation of   6 years 0 months”, may easily be misinterpreted, as the applicant has done.  That entry more probably meant that his service obligation was 6 years, not that he had a remaining six year service obligation, as the applicant believes.  Nonetheless, it matters not now, 40 years after his separation date.  

14.  The National Guard Bureau has issued the applicant a discharge certificate showing his rank as Staff Sergeant, satisfying his request.  His requests for separation documents from the National Guard that he states he never received should be addressed to that agency.

15.  The applicant has indicated that certain of his medical records contain erroneous entries and those entries must be expunged.  It is not the policy of the Board to create or alter service medical records.  Such records merely reflect the observations and opinions of medical examiners at the time they were recorded.  Medical records made and kept by the Department of the Army are merely prima facie evidence of the existence of the fact or facts recorded.  His request to make any changes in his medical records is denied.

16.  Obvious, is that this Board cannot act upon the applicant’s request for mandatory inpatient and outpatient care by the VA.  The granting of that care is between him and the VA, and his request is not within the purview of this Board.  By the same token, his request for a law or executive order disallowing the military use of minors in medical experimentation, the merits of which may or may not be commendable, is also outside the jurisdiction of this Board.  The applicant is protesting that his civil rights were violated because he underwent experiments while he was a minor, and that his constitutional rights were disregarded because he was required to sign waivers and disclaimers.  He has provided to this Board document upon document of memoranda, studies, reports, and so on, from agencies and institutions far and wide, concerning the use of humans in medical experimentation, and the legal, moral, and ethical ramifications in so doing.  The applicant, in all these documents and papers submitted, seems to forget that he volunteered for the experiments, that he signed documents allowing these medical experiments.  There is no evidence that he was forced or coerced into undergoing these tests.  Now, some 40 years after his voluntary participation, he is requesting redress.  He has not shown, to the satisfaction of this Board, that any of his rights were violated, or that he should gain some vantage, or privilege, or compensation, because he volunteered to take part in medical experiments in 1958. 

17.  The applicant’s request for physical disability retirement or separation, or special compensation because of purported illnesses or ailments that he now has, contracted during his military service, is not supported by any probative evidence or by any argument that he has put forth.  The studies which he submits, to include those on the possible long-term effects of exposure to chemical agents, the statistics he provides, the copies of government research projects and proposals concerning medical experiments and their effects, and the multitude of other documents he provides, do not indicate that any of the ostensible ailments that he has, were incurred while on active military service. 

18.  The applicant was discharged from the Army in September 1959 upon the expiration of his term of service, and absent medical evidence to the contrary, he is considered to have been physically fit for separation.  He has provided nothing to dispute this determination.  He himself stated that he was in good health, and there is no evidence to show that he was coerced into making this statement, as he alleges.  Furthermore, his continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.
19.  The applicant was physically fit for enlistment in the CTARNG in 1960.  At that time, he himself stated that he was in good health.  In March 1964 he was medically qualified for retention.  He himself stated that he was in good health.  In March 1968 he was medically qualified for reenlistment.  He himself stated that he was in good health.  The applicant’s active duty military service was not interrupted by any injury or disease suffered thereof.  He is, therefore, not entitled to physical disability separation or retirement.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Consequently, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

20.  The Board notes that the applicant has corresponded over the years on many occasions with numerous agencies to obtain information concerning experiments, rosters, and so forth.  He may wish to continue doing so.  This Board is not an investigating agency nor an information gathering agency.

21.  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

__mkp___  ___gfg__  ____le__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-09556/AR1999018452	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990623	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  107.00		
2.  108.00		
3.  110.00		
4.  124.00		
5.  128.00		
6.