RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

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

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

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

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

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

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

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

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

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

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of an error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   At  the
time members are separated from the Air Force, they  are  furnished
an RE code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and
circumstances of their  separation.   Applicant’s  RE  code  of  2C
accurately reflects that he was  involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence  of
record, we believe that given  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in  accordance  with
the governing directives.  Based  on  the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend favorable action on this application.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-00183 in Executive  Session  on  8  July  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

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




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair