MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021805

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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:  Physical disability retirement.       

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has been diagnosed with narcolepsy (a condition of frequent and uncontrollable desire for sleep), and his record that shows he was barred from reenlistment for poor performance is erroneous.  He is currently under the care of a neurologist at the Neurological Institute of Northern Virginia.  He encloses copies of medical records, both while he was in the service, and after his discharge.  He states that he incurred his medical condition during his military service, ending his military career.  If his condition had been correctly diagnosed he could have continued his military service.

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

The applicant served in the Reserve components prior to his entry on active duty. He enlisted in the Army for three years on 7 October 1987 and remained on continuous active duty until his discharge in 1994.  He was trained as an infantryman, attained the rank of Sergeant E-5, and has been awarded the Army Commendation Medal, four awards of the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, Air Assault Badge, two awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Expert Infantryman Badge, among other awards.  He completed the primary leadership development course in 1990, exceeding course standards.

On 25 February 1994, while stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, he was counseled for failure to pay his debts.  On that same date he was also counseled for not being at a physical training formation at the proper time.

On 7 April 1994 he was counseled for falling asleep during duty hours, in the afternoons of 5 April and 6 April, and counseled again for not being at a physical training formation at the proper time on the morning of 5 April.

He was counseled on 29 July 1994 for failure to follow through on assigned tasks, failure to be truthful, failure to be at the appointed place of duty on time, failure to conduct himself as an NCO, and failure to control his personal problems so as not to interfere with his military duties.

He was counseled on 26 August 1994 for not being at his appointed place of duty on five separate occasions.

He was counseled on 6 September 1994 for failure to coordinate his personal affairs and for his poor duty performance over the past two months.

On 3 October 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer referred the applicant to the community mental health activity, stating that the applicant seemed unusually stressed by work and family situation, where he cried over normal training events.  He stated that the applicant’s emotional level reached the entire spectrum from very high to very low, appeared stressed at all times, and was very fragile, emotionally.  He frequently went on sick call.

A 6 October 1994 report of mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, and met the standards for medical retention in the Army.  He did not have a psychiatric disorder that would warrant disposition through medical channels, and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate. 

On 3 October 1994 the applicant was barred from reenlisting.  He appealed that bar, stating that the failure to coordinate training activities was not his fault, as he had been undergoing a reenlistment course for a week and was about to undergo minor surgery, which left him on quarters and on medication.  His failure to properly complete a report of training statistics was due to his inexperience.  He stated that he felt that he had been excused from physical training until he went on sick call later in the week, and therefor it was not his fault that he missed physical training.  He provided excuses for taking care of his family during duty hours, for being late for work, and for not managing his marital affairs.  He stated that he had made arrangements to pay his debts, and if there was a problem, it was because of lack of support or guidance from within his unit.  His appeal was denied on 10 November 1994.

A 3 December 1994 medical record indicates that the applicant was admitted because he complained of excessive fatigue, tiredness and constant and excessive daytime sleeping and falling asleep in the job, and while driving, over the past year.  He had fallen asleep while smoking had burned himself, had visions that seemed real while driving, had difficulty concentrating, and other problems.  

A 12 December 1994 sleep study report, conducted by the sleep disorders center at Johns Hopkins University indicated that the nocturnal sleep study demonstrated normal sleep onset.  Total sleep time was normal and the sleep efficiency normal.  A multiple daytime sleep latency test was conducted, which consisted of five 30-minute naps spaced at two-hour intervals, the day after the nocturnal study.  There was normal daytime sleep latency.

A 15 December 1994 medical record indicate that the applicant had been admitted to the hospital at Fort Belvoir on 2 December and discharged from the hospital on 15 December 1994, with complaints of excessive sleeping.  That record indicated that the applicant had a neurology consultation, blood work, and the aforementioned sleep study at Johns Hopkins, and that all studies were negative, and that there was no medical reason for the applicant’s excessive sleeping.  The applicant was referred to mental health to further investigate possible stress related reactions.  Personnel in the applicant’s chain of command stated that the applicant did not have any sleep disorder, but was just not an efficient soldier.  Sleep disorder and seizure disorder were ruled out in the discharge diagnoses; however, malingering was not ruled out at that time.

On 21 December 1994 the medical department activity at Fort Belvoir requested that the applicant be retained on active duty beyond his scheduled ETS for completion of medical care.  The applicant stated in a signed affidavit that he did desire retention on active duty beyond his scheduled ETS.  That request was approved for 8 days beyond his scheduled release date of 21 December 1994, or until completion of medical treatment process, whichever was sooner.

A 28 December 1994 physical profile record shows that the applicant had a temporary profile of T3 1 2 1 1 1  because of inappropriate sleeping (rule out narcolepsy), and that he had a referral to neurology.  The applicant had recurrent boils on his face and thigh and was under the care of a dermatologist.  

The applicant received a medical examination on 28 December 1994, however, the second page of the report of that examination is not available (to show whether he was qualified for separation).  The report of medical history indicates that he had a referral to neurology at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  A       28 December 1998 medical health record also indicates that the applicant was placed on a 45 day hold to allow for neurological evaluation of his tendency to fall asleep anywhere, at any time.  He had a referral to neurology and several other referrals.  There is, however, no record of any action taken to place him on a further medical hold. 

A 28 December 1998 radiological examination report indicates a diagnosis of a normal posterior/anterior chest. 

The applicant was discharged on 29 December 1994 because he had completed his term of service.  His DD Form 214 shows that his extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government.  He had 7 years,             2 months, and 23 days of service.  He received separation pay in the amount     of $6269.40.

An 8 February 1995 evaluation from a doctor at the Fairfax medical center of Neurology Services, Inc., indicated that the applicant was examined because of his sleep disorder.  That doctor assessed his condition as a neurologic illness of unknown etiology. Fatigue and tiredness, rule out narcolepsy.  Possibly chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, or other would also be considered.

A 23 February 1998 polysomnography study indicated that the applicant had fragmented sleep and lack of deep sleep.  The study demonstrated a mild degree of sleep apnea syndrome, but was probably insufficient to explain the applicant’s daytime somnolence.  Other diagnoses, such as idioapathic CNS hypersomnolence and narcolepsy should be considered.  In a 24 February 1998 multiple sleep latency test, the applicant’s condition was diagnosed as narcolepsy.

In a 20 May 1998 medical report the applicant was diagnosed as having a sleep disorder which was most consistent with the diagnostic criteria for narcolepsy.  He had no difficulty performing his duties at work for the past 3 years.  The condition was present since childhood and was not thought to be progressive.  The report indicated that there was no reason why the applicant could not perform the functional requirements of his position in his present employment.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b, 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 her 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.

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.  Absent evidence to the contrary the applicant was medically fit at the time of his discharge in December of 1994.  The Board notes the recommendation made for a 45 day hold for medical referrals.  That did not occur.  The Board can only surmise that competent authority determined that those referrals were not necessary, or that the applicant himself declined a further extension on active duty to complete those referrals. 

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant provided numerous reasons and excuses for his behavior in appealing a bar to reenlistment less than three months prior to his discharge; however, at no time did he state that excessive fatigue, tiredness, or excessive daytime sleeping caused his behavior.  Furthermore, the applicant completed various studies, to include neurology and sleep studies, at Johns Hopkins.  All studies were negative. 

3.  The applicant's 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.

4.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

5.  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

___rvo__  __jma___  ___mw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021805	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
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. 108.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.