RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

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

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

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

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

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

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

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

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

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

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

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

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

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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

_______________________________________________________________

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

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

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



                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair