RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01050

            COUNSEL:  JANE C. NORMAN

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect removal of any  reference  to  the
suspension, limitation and revocation of credentials.

The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period
1 May 95 through 30 Apr 96 be expunged and/or revised.

The Report of Adverse Action placed by the  United  States  Air  Force
into the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) on or about 24 Jan 97,
be removed from the NPDB and any and all other reporting agencies.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The recommendations of the Credentials Hearing Board,  later  adopted
by the Command,  were  so  clearly  erroneous  and  contrary  to  the
substantial weight of the evidence that the resultant adverse  action
report(s) should be removed.

The decision to limit his credentials constituted a blatant injustice
based upon his past performance, background and outstanding record.

He has been deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law
guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourth Amendments to  the  United  States
Constitution   based   upon   procedural   irregularities   in    the
credentialing process; bias on  the  part  of  the  participants  and
decision makers; and ineffective assistance of former counsel.

His  credentials  have  been  fully  restored,  and  is  currently  a
credentialed provider at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  He has
been fully “punished,” and whatever the limitation of credentials was
meant to accomplish has long since been accomplished.  (He  has  also
received additional "refresher" training.)  It would be an  injustice
to continue to punish him for the remainder of his medical career.

The cumulative “punishments” in this case so far outweigh the gravity
of any perceived occurrence as to call into question  the  motivation
of the participants in this matter.

He was subjected to a “hostile work environment” before, during, and
after the credentialing hearing process,  which  pre-determined  the
outcome of the hearing.

There is no pathologist in the  Air  Force,  nor  indeed  in  either
military or civilian practice, who  has  a  100  percent  error-free
practice or where terminology or semantics will be in agreement with
other pathologists 100 percent of the time.  If he is to  be  judged
and punished this harshly for what even the government  concedes  is
“minor,” then every pathologist in practice, at one time or another,
would likewise have his credentials restricted and  be  reported  to
the National Practitioner Data Bank.

The continued refusal of the Air Force to expunge his records and to
remove the adverse information from the reporting agencies is  based
upon the erroneous assertion that “The evaluation from the  National
Naval  Medical  Center,  Bethesda,  substantiated  the   allegations
generated at Malcolm Grow Medical  Center."   However,  supplemental
information provided by Dr. Jeffrey M. Ogorzalek,  Head,  Laboratory
Medicine  Department,  National  Naval  Medical  Center,   Bethesda,
demonstrates that in fact the evaluation from Bethesda  was  biased,
and he did not receive the “refresher training” that he was supposed
to be getting at Bethesda.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief and
numerous other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 31 Jul 95.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 5 Jul 83.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       5 Jan 90  Meets Standards
       8 Jun 90  Meets Standards
       8 Jun 91  Meets Standards
       8 Jun 92  Meets Standards
       8 Jun 93  Meets Standards
      30 Apr 94  Meets Standards
      30 Apr 95  Meets Standards
  *  30 Apr 96                      Does Not Meet Standards
      30 Apr 97  Meets Standards
      31 Oct 97  Meets Standards
      31 Oct 98  Meets Standards

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air  Force  Medical  Operations  Agency,  Office  of  the  Surgeon
General, AFMOA/SGOC, reviewed this application and recommended  denial
of the applicant’s request to remove the Adverse Action  Reports  from
the NPDB and  other  reporting  agencies.   According  to  AFMOA/SGOC,
Clinical Privilege actions are taken by the MTF following due  process
procedures.  The applicant was afforded due process during this action
and was represented by civilian counsel.  He was afforded an appeal to
the AF/SG.  He case was reviewed by his peers at both the MTF  and  at
AFMOA/SGOC.  The  action  was  appropriately  reported  following  all
applicable due process and appeal procedures.

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGOC evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit C.

The  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition   Division,   AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and recommended denial  of  the  applicant’s
request to remove the referral OPR closing 30 Apr 96 from his records.
 According to DPPP, the applicant has not provided conclusive evidence
to show the contested report was not rendered in  good  faith  by  all
evaluators based on the knowledge  available  at  the  time.   In  the
absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating  an  injustice  occurred,
DPPP believes the contested report was accurate and just.

A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response, counsel indicated that throughout the entirety of the
proceedings, the Air Force has never demonstrated any  foundation  for
the Draconian punishments meted out.   The  applicant  has  more  than
10,000 cases to his credit during the period under examination and has
practiced pathology since  1972.   Not  a  single  instance  of  overt
patient harm or malpractice has ever been documented.  The Air Force’s
whole case is based  on  a  “concern”  for  possible  future  practice
patterns, which has no basis in fact.

Counsel’s  complete  response  and  additional  documentary  evidence,
including the applicant’s personal statement, are at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR,
reviewed this application to look at  whether  actions  to  limit  the
applicant’s  privileges  were  proper.   According  to   the   Medical
Consultant, Credential Committees are charged with maintaining  proper
standards of care in their facilities, and the multiple  incidents  of
substandard care rendered  by  the  applicant  warranted  the  actions
taken.  He, himself, alluded  to  his  having  become  “rusty  in  his
skills, and the  proper  time  to  take  action  is  when  such  skill
deterioration is recognized--before such  actions  further  jeopardize
patient care.  This instance of privilege limitation  was  in  keeping
with acceptable standards of hospital care and should be expunged.  In
the opinion of the Medical Consultant, no change in  the  records  was
warranted and the application should be denied.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit
G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, counsel indicated that it was  unclear  to  them  how
this appeal could be turned down based upon the overwhelming  evidence
that the adverse action was taken against him  due  to  command  bias,
that the applicant was and is competent, that he was sent to  Bethesda
Naval Hospital after being kept from practicing medicine for one  year
and then not given refresher training; and  that  the  adverse  action
taken against him constituted excessive punishment  for  the  type  of
offenses allegedly committed.

Counsel complete response and additional documentary evidence  are  at
Exhibit I.

By letter, dated 16 Aug 00, counsel  provided  additional  documentary
evidence for the Board’s consideration.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility.  In view of the above, and in  the  absence
of clear-cut  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force
rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 Apr 00 and 14 Sep 00, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGOC, dated 22 Oct 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 13 Dec 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Dec 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, counsel, dated 19 Jan 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 31 May 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, counsel, dated 4 Aug 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, counsel, dated 16 Aug 00, w/atchs.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair