RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01668
            INDEX NUMBER:  108.00; 134.02

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  Eugene R. Fidell

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All  references  to  limitations  imposed  on  her  medical   practice,
including but not limited to  any  reference  to  any  requirement  for
monitoring, evaluation or supervision  by  others  be  removed  in  its
entirety from her records.

She be deemed to have remained on active duty for  an  additional  year
from the date of her discharge and  paid  all  applicable  backpay  and
allowances.

She be provided a proper,  impartial  medical  evaluation  board  (MEB)
followed by a physical evaluation board (PEB) to determine whether  she
was fit for duty at the time of her discharge or, in  the  alternative,
entitled to disability retirement or severance pay.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Counsel for the applicant submits an 18 page “Brief”  with  attachments
that details the applicant’s case.  Between  25  and  28  Apr  00,  the
applicant was the subject of a credentials hearing.   The  Air  Force’s
conduct leading up to, in, and following that hearing is outrageous and
unfair, and all references to the hearing should be expunged  from  the
applicant’s military records.

The  following  seven  allegations  were  addressed  by   the   hearing
committee:

        1.  Deficient data gathering.

        2.  Deficient clinical formulation.

        3.  Deficient treatment plan formulation/execution.

        4.  Ineffective collaboration with colleagues.

        5.  Lack of focus in her role as a child psychiatrist.

        6.  Difficulties in  maintaining  appropriate  boundaries  with
patient’s parents.

        7.  Deficiencies in responding constructively to supervision.

The  hearing  committee  found  that   allegations   5   and   6   were
unsubstantiated but sustained the remainder.   It  concluded  that  the
applicant “is incapable  of  practicing  independent  as  a  child  and
adolescent psychiatrist at this time” and recommended that her clinical
privileges remain restricted but not revoked and  that  before  she  is
considered for reinstatement, she “successfully complete a repeat of  a
two-year program in child and adolescent psychiatry.  If the  applicant
is unable to complete  the  above  requirements  then  this  should  be
grounds for consideration for full revocation of privileges.”

On 26 Jun  00,  the  commander  approved  the  recommendations  of  the
committee, but changed the bottom line.  He directed that the applicant
be granted restricted clinical privileges and  that  to  practice,  the
applicant had to undergo 100% direct clinical supervision from a  board
certified child and  adolescent  psychiatrist.   This  meant  that  the
applicant’s supervisor must be physically present for part  or  all  of
every clinical visit to precept her, review the case, and co-sign chart
entries before the patient/family leave  the  clinic.   Her  privileges
would remain restricted until she demonstrated the ability to  practice
independently in a clinically competent fashion and within the standard
of care for a period of at least one-year.  Monthly  updates  would  be
presented in writing to the Credential Review Function  by  her  direct
supervisor outlining her progress towards obtaining these goals.

Shortly afterwards,  the  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty,
although she had requested an extension.  She  was  never  afforded  an
opportunity to receive the supervision that had  been  ordered  by  the
commander.

On 8 Sep 00,  the  applicant  submitted  a  Provider  Appeal  from  the
commander’s final decision to the Air Force Medical  Operations  Agency
(AFMOA) (attached).  In the appeal,  the  applicant  raised  procedural
objection to the hearing.  During the period that the applicant  waited
for a decision, she was compelled to disclose the adverse  action  both
to her state licensing  agency  and  potential  employers.   Air  Force
medical  authorities  at  her  previous   base   of   assignment   duly
communicated ex parte detailed information about the  matter  to  those
authorities, noting pending  appeal  to  the  Surgeon  General.   As  a
result, the applicant lost valuable employment  opportunities  and  was
required to participate in a 7 Feb 01 hearing before the  Investigation
Committee of the Oregon State Board of Medical Examiners.   That  Board
soon after approved her application for an unrestricted license.

By letter dated 9 Apr 01, the AFMOA  commander  advised  the  applicant
that after consideration of recommendations  of  the  Medical  Practice
Review Board, the restriction imposed by the applicant’s Medical  Group
commander had been  overturned  and  that  her  privileges  were  being
reinstated, with a required period of monitoring  and  evaluation  (not
otherwise explained either as to duration or  other  specifics).   Upon
receipt of the letter, applicant and counsel sent an e-mail  requesting
clarification of the “required period of monitoring and evaluation” and
what it would consist of.  After much back and forth communication, the
applicant and counsel were provided with a copy of AFMOA’s  28  Mar  01
letter  to  Ramstein  reporting  the  outcome  of  the  Review  Board’s
deliberations, as well as a summary  of  the  board’s  rationale.   The
summary was redacted by the Air Force, so they have no inkling of  what
the  Review  Board’s  rationale  was  for  rejecting  the   applicant’s
procedural objections to the proceedings in Germany.   Other  than  the
fact that the Clinical Reviewer felt that the one-year restriction  was
appropriate and thought that she should have been able to set  her  own
limits, the applicant does not know and cannot learn  what  advice  the
Surgeon General received concerning her case, either from the anonymous
Clinical Reviewer or Legal Advisor.  They do know  that  the  applicant
prevailed on important aspects of her appeal and on others she did not.
 Specifically, the unperformable monitoring and evaluation  requirement
remains a part of her record, and she prejudicially  remains  under  an
obligation to disclose the original 1999 suspension.

The Review  Board’s  decision  is  defective  for  several  fundamental
reasons:

        1.  Important procedural objections  lodged  by  the  applicant
with  respect  to  the  hearing  committee  process  and  the   seeming
application of a regulation that was  not  in  effect  have  apparently
disregarded or, if they have been ruled upon and rejected  subsilentio,
The Review Board’s reasoning has not been disclosed.  It is  irrational
for the Review Board to have concluded that a period of monitoring  and
evaluation was appropriate without addressing such  issues  as  whether
the sequence of events were affected by severe and  rampant  documented
personality conflicts, which the command failed to manage proactively.

         2.  The  Review  Board’s  decision  to  require  a  period  of
monitoring and evaluation rests on an evidentiary basis that the  Board
itself found inadequate.  The Review Board was not at liberty simply to
ignore, or fail to explain its rulings on  the  applicant’s  procedural
objections and equitable arguments.  Because it failed to explain  how,
if at all, it dealt with those objections  and  arguments,  the  Review
Board’s decision to require a period of monitoring  and  evaluation  is
arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion  and  must  be  set
aside.  The applicant is also  entitled  to  relief  because  the  very
reasons relied on by the Review Board in support of its reversal of the
action it was reviewing apply equally  to  the  Board’s  own  decision.
Specifically, it determined that the hearing committee’s  action  could
not be sustained because the committee did  not  itself  review  actual
patient records, and the  few  records  that  were  reviewed  were  not
randomly  selected.   The  same  flaw  infects   the   Review   Board’s
proceedings.  It did not review patient records  and  the  only  sample
described in the record was the same one it found defective when relied
upon by the hearing committee.  The Review Board’s discussion  contains
three observations that cumulatively raise a grave issue  of  fairness.
Specifically, the board noted that (1) implementation of  the  original
monitoring and evaluation may have obviated the need  for  a  privilege
action, (2) the lack of documentation to support  that  an  opportunity
for remediation through monitoring and evaluation by a peer  was  given
full consideration, and (3) there was insufficient time to provide such
supervision because the applicant was separating from the Air Force.

On 14 Jun 00, before her separation, the applicant requested  that  she
be permitted to remain on active duty.   She  reiterated  this  a  week
later, and was told that such a request would not  be  recommended  for
approval.  Given the Air Force’s desire to  retain  physicians,  it  is
clear that had the adverse credentialing recommendation not been  made,
she would have been retained on active duty.  This is reinforced by the
fact that AFMOA approved a period of monitoring and evaluation that  of
course cannot be effected because she was not on active duty.

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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty for a period of eight  years,  five
in training programs and three as a practicing child psychiatrist.   In
April 2000, she was the subject of a  credentialing  hearing  in  which
five of seven allegations against her were substantiated.  The  hearing
panel concluded the applicant was incapable of independent practice  as
a  child  and  adolescent  psychiatrist,  but  recommended   restricted
privileges be granted.  The panel also suggested applicant  complete  a
two-year program in child and adolescent psychiatry and if unable, that
the credentials be revoked.

Applicant submitted a statement of exceptions to the  hearing  decision
on 16 June 2000.  The final decision on 26  Jun  00  was  to  reinstate
privileges restricted to 100% direct clinical supervision, by  a  board
certified   child   and   adolescent   psychiatrist   until   applicant
demonstrated the ability to  practice  independently.   This  would  be
followed  by  at  least  an  additional  one-year  restriction.    Upon
demonstration  of  competence,  it   was   implied   that   applicant’s
credentials could be restored.  The applicant separated  from  the  Air
Force on   30 June 2000 after the expiration of her Active Duty Service
Commitment.

On 8 September 2000, applicant appealed the restrictions placed on  her
clinical privileges for professional  incompetence  to  the  Air  Force
Medical Practice Review Board (AFMPRB), alleging numerous  errors  with
the conduct of the hearing and its conclusions.  The AFMPRB  agreed  in
part and on 28 March 2001, overturned the  restriction  as  an  adverse
privileging action and reinstated applicant’s privileges, but  required
a period of monitoring and evaluation.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends that the applicant’s request for
MEB/PEB consideration be denied, but her request for expungement of all
references to the credentialing action be further  reviewed  by  proper
legal authority, and that a decision regarding this issue be determined
based on their decision and advisory.

The applicant’s recognized medical and psychological disorders were not
unfitting for performance of her military duties once she  was  already
commissioned.  Appropriate evaluations and  treatments  were  initiated
for the established diagnoses.   The  Ehler-Danlos  Syndrome  (EDS)  (a
congenital abnormality of her connective tissue) is  not  cause  for  a
finding of unfitness and clearly was a part of the applicant’s  genetic
makeup she brought with her to the military.  As she had  no  unfitting
conditions  upon  which  to  base  disability   processing,   she   was
appropriately not evaluated in that system and approval of her  present
request  for  such  disability  consideration  is  not   warranted   or
recommended.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an MEB/PEB.

Individual’s military records reflect the applicant was identified  for
a medical examination  on  9  May  00  due  to  her  pending  voluntary
separation.  Although some previous mention was  made  in  her  medical
records that she was going to undergo an MEB, a review of  the  medical
data from her 14 Jun 00 appointment does not point  to  any  severe  or
grave medical  conditions,  which  would  have  required  that  she  be
presented before an MEB.  Comments in  her  medical  records  (one  day
prior to her discharge) by her provider states:  “It is agreed that her
current diagnoses do not warrant a medical board and that she would  be
able to continue her duties in her current medical condition,  although
with  limited  profile.   Although  her  condition  could  progress  to
requiring an MEB, there is no current indication and no way to  predict
a future need.  Therefore, I will not initiate a medical board.”

The fact that a person may have had a medical condition while on active
duty does not automatically mean that the condition  is  unfitting  for
continued military service.  Although some of the  applicant’s  medical
conditions may have been onset prior to her discharge,  they  were  not
severe enough to prematurely curtail her  military  career.   In  cases
where medical principles and the preponderance of  evidence  appear  to
indicate certain medical  conditions  existed  while  in  service,  the
Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) can rule in favor  of  the  veteran
and classify their condition as service-connected,  thereby  qualifying
the member for DVA compensation and treatment under  Title  38,  United
States Code.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFMOA/SGZC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to expunge  the
record of her suspension.  Suspension of the applicant’s privileges was
authorized  by  AFI  44-119  and  was  done  so  appropriately  at  the
discretion of the commander who had a valid  reason  for  invoking  the
suspension.

Questions about the applicant’s clinical abilities arose shortly  after
her arrival at the Pediatric Behavioral Management Clinic in the summer
of 97.  These were formalized during a peer review in April  1998,  but
not found severe enough to warrant a privileging action at  that  time.
A formal supervisory plan was, however, put into effect to monitor  her
clinical practice.  She was moved  to  another  clinic  to  allow  peer
support and consultation.  On 11 Oct 99, while she was on call she  did
not respond to an ER request  to  come  in.   This  prompted  a  second
complete review of her clinical practice.  As a result, her  privileges
were  placed  in  abeyance,   and   eventually   suspended   while   an
investigation ensued.

A credentialing hearing was eventually convened, as  requested  by  the
applicant, and recommended restriction of all privileges  and  required
100%  supervision  of  all  patient  encounters   and   chart   review.
Privileges were to be restricted for a period of  one  year,  at  which
time a second review would be performed to see if the privileges  could
be restored to full independent practice.  The applicant appealed  this
decision  to  AFMOA/CC.   After   reviewing   the   deliberations   and
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  Medical  Practice  Review  Board,
AFMOA/CC overturned the MTF Commander’s restriction of the  applicant’s
privileges.  He  recommended  full  reinstatement  of  privileges,  but
required a period of monitoring and evaluation.  The MTF Commander  and
the applicant were notified of this decision.  No reports were made  to
the National Practitioner Data Bank.

The following addresses the specific allegations that  form  the  basis
for the applicant’s appeal:

        1.  The Air Force’s conduct leading up  to,  in  and  following
that hearing is outrageous and  unfair.   Specifically,  the  applicant
alleges that some committee members had  conflicts  of  interests,  and
that the commander based his decision on a version of an AFI  that  had
not yet taken effect.

The MTF Commander determined, with the advice of the base legal office,
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  recuse  certain   members   of   the
credentialing committee that the applicant believed  had  conflicts  of
interest.  In regards to the commander basing his decision on a version
of an AFI that had not taken effect, his letter  announcing  his  final
decision clearly refers to AFI 44-119, Chapter 4, which was the version
in effect at that time.  However, even if an error in terminology  were
made, it would not have had an impact on the final outcome.

        2.  There was a prejudicial delay by the MPRB.

The MTF Commander’s final decision was rendered on 26 Jun 00,  and  the
AFMOA/CC decision was signed on 28 Mar 01.  The adverse action  process
allows a provider 10 days to submit an appeal of an adverse privileging
action.  This office honored a request on 14 Jul  00  for  a  one-month
extension.  An additional extension request was granted on  10  Aug  00
and her appeal, dated 8 Sep 00 was received in the latter part  of  Sep
00.  There was no attempt to unduly delay this action.

        3.  The applicant struggled to obtain a copy  of  the  Military
Practice Review Board minutes.

These minutes are  protected  from  disclosure  IAW  10  USC  1102  and
historically  have  not  been  released  to  a  provider  undergoing  a
privileging action.  However, the applicant’s attorney obtained a  copy
after extensive discussions with the SG legal advisor.  The identity of
the MPRB membership is protected form disclosure per 10 USC 1102.

        4.  The applicant’s privileges were improperly suspended.

AFI 44-119, Chapter  4,  Paragraph  4.7  states  that  an  individual’s
privileges become suspended if the clinical concerns are  not  resolved
prior to the end of the abeyance period.  This action was appropriately
taken after reasonable deliberation.  It remains a part of  her  record
because  it  was  indeed  a  factual  event  leading  to  the  ultimate
disposition of her case.

        5.  The Review Board’s decision is arbitrary and capricious and
unsupported by substantial evidence.

The MPRB is comprised of a group of medical and legal professionals who
review each case thoroughly for appropriate due  process  and  clinical
deficiencies,  and  make  recommendations  to  the  Air  Force  Surgeon
General.  There was evidence that the applicant had  some  deficiencies
in her clinical practice, but they did not rise to the level warranting
a restriction of her privileges and making a  report  to  the  National
Practitioner Data Bank.  Given the concerns noted,  however,  the  MPRB
could not, in good faith, recommend she be returned to duty  completely
unrestricted.

        6.  The  Review  Board’s  own  rationale  refutes  the  board’s
decision.

The final recommendation was to return to the original  monitoring  and
evaluation plan that was never carried out.  This information would  be
provided to any facility or agency  requesting  information  about  her
privileging status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force  evaluations  through  a  12  page
Brief of Counsel.  Counsel addresses the applicant’s request for a  MEB
and the credentialing issue.

Counsel states that AFPC/DPPD’s assertion that the  applicant  did  not
submit any material or documentation to show that she was unfit due  to
a physical disability at the  time  of  her  “voluntary  discharge”  is
plainly  wrong  and  suggests  that  the  author  did  not   read   the
documentation they submitted.  Their advisory  opinion  fails  to  take
into account in any way the fact  that  the  applicant  was  improperly
denied a professionally conducted discharge physical.  The physical she
received was a sham.  The physician to whom she was required to  report
never examined her that day.  The  physician’s  commander  had  already
determined  the  outcome  of  this  physical.   The  day  before,   the
applicant’s commander had announced to her that she did  not  “qualify”
for an MEB.

Counsel refers the Board to the applicant’s 8 Sep  00  Provider  Appeal
Brief (p.10, and enclosures 19-20) included with her  BCMR  application
for details of how the  “putative”  physical  was  conducted.   Counsel
disagrees with the assertion that the applicant can always go to the VA
(which she has done).  If the applicant had  unfitting  conditions,  as
the record indicates, she had a right  to  an  MEB.   She  also  had  a
further right, if called by an MEB and normal review,  to  a  statutory
full and fair hearing before  a  physical  evaluation  board.   The  VA
cannot grant military retirement.  VA benefits are not  identical  with
military retirement benefits.

Counsel questions the allegation that the applicant’s military  records
clearly reflect that she was able to perform  her  military  duties  up
until her discharge.  He asserts that the applicant was assigned menial
tasks from the time her privileges were suspended in Oct 99  until  her
discharge on    30 Jun 00.

AFPC/DPPD’s evaluation relied on the 26 Sep 01 evaluation  prepared  by
the BCMR Medical Consultant concerning the medical aspects of the case.
 Counsel  indicates  that  while  they  agree  with  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant’s view regarding the  expungement  of  the  records  of  the
credentialing action, they believe the evaluation is  otherwise  flawed
due to his conclusory comments regarding her Ehler-Danlos Syndrome  and
his failure to address with particularity a variety of the symptoms and
conditions  that  the  applicant  identified.   Counsel  discusses  the
applicant’s medical conditions and why she was entitled to an MEB.

In regards to the evaluation prepared by AFMOA,  Counsel  asserts  that
they have failed to provide substantive responses to the errors he  and
the applicant have pointed out.  Counsel also  indicates  that  AFMOA’s
summary of the factual background of  the  case  is  incorrect  and  he
provides what he asserts is the correct summary of events.

The complete submission by Counsel is at Exhibit G.

_______________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,   HQ   USAF/JAG   evaluated   this
application.   They  concur  with  the  opinion  of  the  BCMR  medical
Consultant to grant the applicant’s  request  for  expungement  of  her
records  pertaining  to  the  credentialing  action.    However,   they
recommend that applicant’s request that her  records  be  corrected  to
show she remained on active duty until 30 June 2001  be  denied.   They
also recommend that applicant’s request for MEB/PEB be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  responded  through  counsel  to  the  Additional  Air  Force
evaluation.  They agree with the recommendation  on  the  credentialing
action.

Regarding whether the applicant should be deemed to  have  remained  on
active duty, they disagree  with  their  recommendation  to  deny  this
request.   The  evaluation  incorrectly  suggests  that  the  applicant
requested separation.  Instead, it was a function of the expiration  of
her HPSP Active Duty Service Commitment, rather than a request  on  her
part.  Counsel states that applicant indicated a desire  to  remain  on
active duty, but given the reaction of her command understood  that  it
would have been futile to submit a formal request.   In  light  of  the
monitoring and evaluation condition placed on  the  applicant,  it  was
fundamentally unfair not to allow her a chance to satisfy it within the
Air Force.

As for whether the command’s efforts to exclude the applicant from  the
MEB/PEB process was fair or proper, the evaluation  adds  nothing,  but
simply expresses agreement with views previously submitted by AFPC/DPPD
and the BCMR Medical Consultant.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request  that
her  record  be  cleared  of  all  reference  to  the  suspension   and
credentialing action against her, including the Review Board’s decision
and  the  Review  Board  approved  requirement   for   monitoring   and
evaluation.  We accept the determination and recommendation of the BCMR
Medical Consultant, supported by HQ  USAF/JAG,  that  in  view  of  the
follow-up action taken by the  Air  Force  Medical  Operations  Agency,
there was, in essence, no  valid  credentialing  action  in  the  first
place,  and  removal  of  all  references  to  such  action  would   be
appropriate.  Therefore, in the interest  of  equity  and  justice,  we
recommend that the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the  applicant’s  request
for a Medical Evaluation Board and her request that her record  reflect
that she was retained on active duty for  a  year  beyond  her  present
separation date.  We accept the findings of the BCMR Medical Consultant
that  the  applicant  did  not  have  an  unfitting  medical  condition
warranting processing under the Air  Force  disability  system.   While
taking note of the relief we have recommended above, we do not find any
grounds to support extending the applicant’s separation  date.   We  do
not agree with the apparent argument by counsel  that  the  requirement
for a one-year period of monitoring was reason  for  the  applicant  to
have  been  retained  on  active  duty.   This  requirement   and   the
applicant’s impending separation appear to be a coincidence of  timing.
There is no evidence that the amount of time the applicant had left  in
service was a determinant in the monitoring requirement.  At any  rate,
we note, as pointed out by HQ USAF/JAG,  that  the  applicant  did  not
submit a formal withdrawal of her separation  request.   Therefore,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend  granting  this  portion  of  the
relief sought in this application.

5.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that all references to  the
suspension and credentialing action against  her,  including,  but  not
limited to, the decision of  the  Air  Force  Medical  Practice  Review
Board,  the  requirement  to  undergo  a  period  of   monitoring   and
evaluation, and all other adverse information related to this action be
removed from her records and sequestered.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 01-01668 in
Executive Session on 19 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant,
                 Dated 26 Sep 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPD, dated 31 Oct 01.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFMOA/SGZC, dated 12 Feb 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Mar 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 8 Apr 02,
                 W/atch.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 13 May 02.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 May 02.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 3 Jun 02.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-01668


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that all references to the suspension and credentialing action
against her, including, but not limited to, the decision of the Air
Force Medical Practice Review Board, the requirement to undergo a
period of monitoring and evaluation, and all other adverse
information related to this action be, and hereby is, removed from
her records and sequestered.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency