RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01487
            INDEX CODE:  134.02
            COUNSEL:  Mr. James L. Stanton

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The findings and recommendations of  a  Medical  Practice  Review  Board
(MPRB) restricting her from  practicing  Emergency  Room  (ER)  medicine  be
removed from her records.

2. The determination of the --th Medical  Group  commander  restricting  her
from practicing  medicine  in  the  Family  Practice/Primary  Care/Aerospace
Medicine clinics without 100 percent supervision for six months  be  removed
from her records.

3. The adverse correspondence provided to  the  National  Practitioner  Data
Bank (NPDB) by the Office of the Surgeon General of the  Air  Force  (AF/SG)
be  rescinded,  or  in  the  alternative,  the  restriction  be  reduced  to
supervised practice in the ER and clinical settings.

4.  She be granted physicians incentive pay and other benefits  from  1  Jan
99 through 1 Dec 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The findings and recommendations of the MPRB held at --- AFB, ---,  and  the
subsequent actions by her commander and the AF/SG did not meet the  criteria
set forth in AFI 44-119.  The basis for convening the MPRB was primarily  10
patient complaints.  Of the 10 complaints the MPRB found  that  8  pertained
to waiting times that did  not  appear  to  have  resulted  in  any  adverse
outcomes.  The two remaining complaints were a letter from an NCO about  the
applicant crying during his appointment,  inappropriate  comments  she  made
about hospital officials,  a  dream  she  related  about  shooting  hospital
leadership,  and  having  discussed  her  childhood  sexual  abuse  with   a
technician in the  front  office.   The  MPRB  concluded  that  because  the
applicant did not deny them, the incidents did occur.   A  physician  agreed
that while  inappropriate,  the  outbursts  were  secondary  to  stress  and
concluded that she was neither suicidal nor homicidal.  The  MPRB  concluded
that these incidents were consistent with her inability to handle  stressful
situations in an appropriate manner and  felt  that  she  should  limit  her
practice to settings which do not produce undue stress.  The other  incident
involved a complaint about the applicant's treatment for a  cat  bite  by  a
patient who contended that the applicant failed to  render  proper  care  by
failing to initiate a tetanus shot, delivering the  wrong  oral  antibiotic,
and prescription of an incorrect dosage of rabies  immunoglobin.   The  MPRB
found  that  the  allegations  were  true  and  that  they  were   corrected
immediately and had no adverse effect upon the patients care.

In another incident, the applicant prescribed a patient Tylenol  but  handed
the patient a bottle of Benadryl  instead.   The  MPRB  concluded  that  the
mistake did occur but noted that both medicines were  elixir-type  drugs  in
identical bottles with identical labels of the same  color  manufactured  by
the same manufacturer.  The Pharmacist testified that  this  error  was  not
uncommon and not isolated to the applicant.  The Pharmacist  also  testified
that the applicant was highly regarded for  her  pharmacological  knowledge.
The MPRB also noted that there  were  only  two  medication  errors  by  the
applicant since her arrival 6 month earlier and that she had seen well  over
1,000 patients during that time.

The  more  serious  complaint  was  a  "Code  Blue"  situation.   The   main
complaints in this situation were her inadequate airway  control,  inability
to properly follow Advanced Cardiac Life  Support  (ACLS)  guidelines,  CPR,
and defibrillation.  The patient died from cardiac  arrest.   The  applicant
was in charge of directing Code Blue on the patient with the  assistance  of
Major B--- and Colonel O---.  The MPRB found that there was a breach in  the
standard of care by the applicant and that her conduct did have a  potential
to adversely affect the quality of patient care.  The MPRB  noted,  however,
that it was difficult to objectively assess the situation because they  were
not provided certain support documents, notwithstanding their  request  that
such  documents  be  produced.   Major  B--  testified  that  the  requested
materials  were  not  available  but  for  some  unexplained  reasons,  they
reappeared after the MPRB hearing.  The MRPB stated  that  it  had  to  rely
upon eyewitness testimony of Major B--- and Colonel O--- and concluded  that
the applicant was unable to successfully intubate the patient and failed  to
adequately follow ACLS protocol.  The MPRB noted  that  she  demonstrated  a
visible uneasiness when confronted with a  hypothetical  ACLS  scenario  and
did appear to be in  control  of  the  situation.   The  MPRB  concluded  by
stating that under nonstressful situations, she  is  capable  of  performing
airway  management  and  made  the  additional  comment  that  there  is   a
tremendous difference  between  real  code  and  a  controlled  environment.
Counsel states that even including the Code Blue, all of the complaints  and
allegations against the applicant were  non-life  threatening  and  did  not
affect any of the patients adversely.  She  saw  1,151  patients  in  the  8
months  that  she  practiced  as  an  ER  provider.   There  were  only  two
medication complaints and nine  complaints  dealing  with  patient  concerns
with time waiting to be seen in the ER.   The  applicant  should  have  been
able  to  continue  to  practice  ER  medicine,  or  clinical  medicine   as
recommended by the MPRB instead  of  never  being  permitted  to  treat  any
patients from the time of the board until her medical discharge.

The MPRB noted  that  it  was  alleged  that  the  applicant  suffered  from
Multiple Sclerosis (MS),  neuropsychological  deficits,  and  carpal  tunnel
syndrome.  The MPRB noted that she faced a Medical  Evaluation  Board  (MEB)
and was returned to duty following a determination that she did not  have  a
clinical diagnosis of MS.  While stationed  in  ---  she  was  evaluated  at
Wilford Hall Medical Center by the Chairman  of  Neurology,  whose  findings
were consistent with  the  diagnosis  of  MS.   An  independent  neurologist
evaluation at the Beth  Israel  Deaconess  Medical  Center  determined  that
further clinical symptoms were  necessary  before  a  final  conclusion  was
drawn  and  that  her  symptoms  were  more  consistent  with  Guillan-Barre
syndrome/Miller Fisher variant.   The  MPRB  agreed  that  further  clinical
symptoms should occur before MS could  be  substantiated  and  limiting  her
practice  as  a  physician  based  on  physical  disability  could  not   be
justified.  However, that  is  exactly  what  happened  despite  the  MPRB's
recommendation.  The Air Force had a duty to give  her  the  opportunity  to
comply with the restrictions placed on her by the MPRB  and  her  commander.
She was never given  the  opportunity  to  practice  as  a  physician  in  a
clinical setting (except at Keesler AFB) and was not placed  in  a  clinical
setting at ---- AFB.  Because ---- AFB  was  scheduled  to  close,  she  was
reassigned to ---- AFB.  She was sent on temporary duty  for  two  weeks  to
the medical facility at Keesler AFB for observation of her ER  capabilities.
 The commander of the medical facility at Keesler AFB made a report  to  her
commander at ---- AFB that all the Air Force physicians at Keesler  AFB  who
observed her actions recommended that she not be returned to duty in  an  ER
but that she would be quite capable of performing  medical  duties  in  less
stressful medical clinics.  While assigned at ---- AFB she was not  assigned
to a clinical setting as a physician but instead was relegated to duties  of
reviewing medical records and those of a file clerk.  This arbitrary  action
totally destroyed her ability to practice as a  physician  and  resulted  in
another MEB followed by a Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB).   This  action
demonstrated the Air Force's quest to remove her  from  practicing  medicine
and to ultimately remove her from the Air Force.

The Air Force conducted its  hearings,  made  its  recommendations  and  her
commander added his approval with the  slight  modification  of  having  her
clinical practice 100  percent  supervised  for  6  months  instead  of  the
recommended 3 months.  Her commander made the decision to  go  forward  with
her practicing in clinics instead of  the  ER.   The  MPRB  noted  that  she
possessed requisite knowledge to be  a  physician  and  the  physicians  who
reviewed her  ER  capabilities  agreed  that  she  should  be  permitted  to
practice in a clinical setting.  Notwithstanding these recommendations,  she
was never placed in a clinical setting.  This not only humiliated her  as  a
military physician but  also  took  away  her  ability  to  demonstrate  and
improve  her  clinical  abilities,  but  most  importantly,  took  away  her
livelihood as a physician for the rest of her life.  The applicant  had  the
right to rely on the MPRB's recommendation  and  her  commander's  statement
that she would be placed in a  clinical  setting.   Had  this  happened  she
could have at least  salvaged  her  medical  career  from  a  standpoint  of
rendering medical service in a non-emergency room setting both while in  the
Air Force and as a civilian.  The Air Force initiated a second MEB  in  July
2000 based again on its assertion that she had MS.  The  MEB  recommended  a
PEB be  conducted  which  eventually  resulted  in  her  medical  disability
retirement.  The Air Force indicated that because  of  this  condition,  she
should not be placed even in a clinical position.   Neither  the  first  PEB
nor the MPRB concluded that she could not provide clinical care,  therefore,
any claim that her  medical  condition  would  prevent  her  from  providing
routine care was without any basis in fact.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  provided  her  counsel's   brief,
documentation associated with her clinical privileges  hearing  and  appeals
thereof, documentation associated with her MEB  and  PEB  determinations,  a
copy of her permanent  change-of-station  orders,  documentation  associated
with her medical skills evaluation at Keesler  AFB,  a  personal  statement,
copies of clinical neuropsychological reports, a letter  from  her  attorney
and her commander's  response,  policy  on  medical  licensure  letter,  her
statement of military compensation;  a  copy  of  her  Active  Duty  Service
Commitment  Counseling  Statement,  a  Leave  and  Earnings  Statement,  and
extracts for several Air Force instructions.  Her complete submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Jun 92, the applicant, a  prior  service  Army  Reserve  officer,  was
appointed a major, Medical  Corps,  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force.   She  was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 28 Jul 92.

A credentials hearing was conducted to address matters that pertain  to  her
clinical proficiency, professional conduct as well as matters affecting  her
mental and physical well-being.  The hearing addressed  patient  complaints,
mental/physical  limitations  mounting  to   an   unacceptable   impairment,
forgetful/disorganization in the clinical  setting,  inappropriate  actions,
and allegations of substandard care in the ER setting.   The  applicant  was
represented by counsel and presented her own evidence  and  witnesses.   The
hearing committee unanimously concluded that she should not practice  in  an
ER setting due to the concern that she  does  not  adequately  manage  task-
saturated   events,   family   practice/primary   care/aerospace    medicine
privileges should be allowed, she  should  be  monitored  with  100  percent
chart review for no less than 3 months, and at the conclusion of  the  three
month period  her  privileges  should  be  reevaluated.   She  appealed  the
decision to the AF/SG on the basis that the  government  failed  to  produce
crucial medical records, the government introduced records not  provided  to
the  applicant  prior  to  the  hearing,  the  government  exerted   command
influence upon at  least  one  witness,  the  government  failed  to  assure
impartiality of the Hearing Committee, and the government went  outside  the
hearing record to investigate an incident without  advising  the  applicant.
AF/SG completed a review of  the  adverse  action  and  her  appeal.   AF/SG
agreed with the MPRB and directed this action be reported to  the  NPDB  and
States of known licensure.

While stationed at ----  AFB,  the  Air  Force  offered  her  an  additional
reevaluation of her emergency room practice.  She was sent  to  Keesler  AFB
for reevaluation.  During  this  time  six  ER  physicians  provided  direct
evaluation of her ER practice.  Their recommendations stated that  it  would
not be prudent to leave the  applicant  alone  in  charge  of  an  emergency
department, that she was not a competent emergency physician, and most  (but
not all) evaluators believed  that  she  could  perform  in  a  satisfactory
manner in a controlled, slower clinical setting.  They  concluded  that  she
has good clinical knowledge  in  most  settings  but  all  agreed  that  she
couldn't  handle  the  "multi-tasking"  needed  in  the  emergency  medicine
specialty.

An MEB was convened on 1 Dec  98  and  referred  her  case  to  an  Informal
Physical  Evaluation  Board  (IPEB)  with  a  diagnosis   of   Gullian-Barre
syndrome, MS, antisocial, histrionic, and narcissistic  personality  traits,
cognitive disorder, and glaucoma.  On 28 Jan 99, the IPEB  recommended  that
she be returned to duty.

On 12 Jul 00, an MEB was convened and referred her case to an  IPEB  with  a
diagnosis of MS versus, less  likely,  recurrent  Miller-Fisher  variant  of
Gullian-Barre.  On 10 Aug 00, the IPEB found her unfit for further  military
service based on a diagnosis of  MS,  associated  with  secondary  cognitive
deficit and recommended that she be permanently retired with  a  compensable
percentage of 30 percent.  The applicant disagreed  with  the  findings  and
recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a Formal PEB  (FPEB).   On
20 Sep 00, the  applicant  elected  to  waive  her  right  to  an  FPEB  and
indicated that she concurred with the findings and  recommended  disposition
of the IPEB.  On 17 Oct 00, the Office of the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
directed that she be retired in  the  grade  of  major  with  a  compensable
rating of 30 percent.  She was retired on 1 Dec 00.  She served 8  years,  4
months, and 4 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFMPA/SGZC reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  SGZC  states
that it is important to note that she was provided a  Credentialing  package
upon her arrival at ---- AFB.  She only applied for ER clinical  privileges.
 She did not apply for Family Practice clinic privileges.  Because  she  did
not apply for Family Practice privileges,  the  facility  did  not  have  an
opportunity to  reevaluate  her  after  a  period  of  supervision  in  this
clinical setting.

Regarding the applicant's allegation  that  her  rights  were  violated  for
failure to produce crucial medical records used by the Credentials  Hearing,
SGCZ states that the medical documentation was missing for a period of  time
during the adverse privileging action  and  was  found  just  prior  to  the
hearing.  AF/SG did not consider this information as a basis for the  action
taken upon her privileges.  Regarding her allegation that  there  was  undue
command influence upon at least one witness, SGCZ states  that  the  witness
stated she felt pressured not to testify for the applicant, she did  testify
on her behalf and the testimony did not have  any  negative  impact  on  the
applicant.  Regarding her allegation that  the  medical  treatment  facility
failed to assure impartiality of the hearing  committee,  SGCZ  states  that
this allegation is based on one statement from a hearing member  who  stated
he  had  confidence  in  Major  B---'s  performance  during  the  code  blue
incident,  Major  B---'s  performance  was  not  in  question  and  this  is
irrelevant to this case.  Regarding her allegation that one  member  of  the
medical treatment facility went outside the Hearing record to investigate  a
peer review at a different medical facility, SGCZ states that one  committee
member telephoned Langley AFB to inquire about the results of a peer  review
on the code blue involving the applicant.  No information  was  provided  to
the member and giving her the benefit of the doubt, was not considered as  a
factor in the final decision by AF/SG.  Regarding her  allegation  that  she
does not have a higher patient complaint rate than her  peers,  SGCZ  states
that this allegation cannot be validated since patient complaint rates  were
submitted  by  the  medical  treatment  facility.   The  patient  complaints
submitted  on  her  behalf  demonstrated  labile  emotional  and  behavioral
issues.  Regarding her allegation that  she  did  not  have  opportunity  to
respond to the patient complaints and there  is  no  documentation  of  poor
patient outcomes, SGCZ states that  there  is  general  agreement  that  she
posses good  medical  knowledge.   Her  diagnosed  cognitive  deficits  have
impacted her ability to manage a  fast-paced,  multi-tasked  emergency  room
environment.  Once this problem was recognized the facility took  action  to
prevent  any  medical  mishaps.   Regarding  her   allegation   that   other
physicians supported her medical care,  SGCZ  states  that  some  physicians
provided supportive statements; however, none of  the  statements  was  from
her peer emergency room physicians, the specialty where she was felt  to  be
deficient.  Regarding her allegation that the medical facility produced  new
evidence without providing the evidence to her, SGCZ sates that there is  no
reference to this information, it was not considered  as  a  factor  by  the
Hearing Committee or the MPRB and had no impact on the final outcome.
The SGZC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAMF1 reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPAMF1
states that revocation of the applicant's ER privileges  was  authorized  in
accordance with AFI 44-9119 and was done so appropriately as the  discretion
of the medical  facility  commander  and  supported  by  AF/SG.   Title  37,
Chapter 5 of the United States Code states that an officer in  not  eligible
for incentive special pay unless  the  Secretary  concerned  has  determined
that such officer is qualified in the medical profession.  The Secretary  of
the Air Force delegated to approve and disapprove physician special pays  on
22 Jun 98.   AFI 41-9109, Special Pay for Health Professionals, states  that
a Medical Corps officer is entitled to incentive pay if  the  individual  is
fully qualified in a medical specialty and  practicing  in  that  specialty.
Based on the determination of the Air Force MPRB and the AF/SG, she was  not
eligible to receive physician incentive pays.

The DPAMF1 evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded and states that  the  MPRB  did  not  recommend  that  the
applicant's medical privileges be "revoked" but  only  that  she  should  be
monitored with 100 percent chart review for no less than 3 months  and  then
reevaluated at the conclusion of that period.  This, in fact did not  occur.
 It was her commander who expanded the MPRB's  recommendation  to  "rescind"
her  emergency  medicine  privileges  and  to  direct  that   her   clinical
privileges "be continued in Category 2 with 100  percent  chart  review  and
full supervision for a period of 6 months."  While the physicians at the  ER
at Keesler AFB did not think she should be left alone and in  charge  of  an
emergency department, counsel points out that this should not  preclude  her
from being able to prove herself in the future  by  being  an  assistant  ER
provider in a civilian hospital.  The significance of the  fact  that  most,
but not all of the ER evaluators  believed  that  she  could  perform  in  a
satisfactory manner in a controlled slower  clinic  setting  seems  to  have
been lost in the review.  Nobody in authority in the  Air  Force  has  given
the applicant the benefit of these positive statements and  counsel  contend
that these statements are very significant in evaluating  her  abilities  to
perform medical duties in a clinical setting.

SGCZ states that when she  was  given  a  credentialing  package,  she  only
applied for ER clinical privileges claiming that it was  her  responsibility
to apply for credentialing and  that  credentialing  is  not  awarded  until
application is made  for  them.   This  may  be  the  routine  under  normal
circumstances but not under the applicant's circumstances.   The  Air  Force
had the duty to take the steps necessary to insure that she was  reevaluated
in both the ER and clinical settings regardless in where she  was  assigned.
The statement of her commander clearly shows that it was the  responsibility
of the Air Force, not the  applicant,  to  assure  that  both  her  clinical
privilege status' be reevaluated.  In the Staff Judge Advocate's  memorandum
to  her  commander,  he  recommended  against  reassigning  her  because  he
believed it would give the appearance of reprisal  against  her  because  of
the  adverse  hearing  outcome.   He  further  recommended  such  action  be
coordinated with the major command and that her gaining  unit  officials  be
notified of her situation.  From the time the applicant arrived at ----  AFB
she was only allowed to do administrative tasks and was never  permitted  to
see any patients in any clinic despite her repeated voicing  of  her  desire
to do so.  The Air Force was at fault for  not  assigning  her  to  clinical
duties and in failing to follow through with  reevaluating  her  performance
of clinical duties.

Her commander noted that he had reviewed the record  of  the  MPRB  hearing,
including the AETC Form 1280 Code Blue Record, which was  noted  as  missing
at the time of the hearing.  This corroborates  the  applicant's  allegation
that the MPRB did not have the opportunity to review this  crucial  document
which would have been to her benefit because it shows that even  though  she
was unable to intubate the patient, the patient was intubated by Major  B---
.  This documentation also refutes testimony of Major B--- where he  related
that the applicant failed to defibrillate the patient in  a  timely  manner.
The facts are that the procedures were done but  the  MPRB  did  not  review
this documentation before it made its report.

During the hearing, her attorney challenged Major B--- testimony  concerning
the Code Blue and the challenge was not  allowed  by  the  Chairman  of  the
Board.  His statement clearly showed that the Chairman was biased  in  Major
B---'s favor which is crucial to understanding that not only was Major  B---
a key witness against the applicant but on his own initiative he prepared  a
letter to the commander recommending what action should be  taken  and  also
recommending that her monitoring and reevaluation not be accomplished at ---
- AFB.

It should be noted that prior to  her  evaluation  at  Keesler  AFB  her  ER
experiences were at relatively small ER  facilities,  which  by  their  very
nature would limit the extent of her capabilities.   Keesler  AFB,  however,
was home to the Air Force's second  largest  emergency  services  department
with an annual patient volume of 30,000 to  35,000  visits  per  year.   The
fact that most but not all of the Keesler AFB  physicians  states  that  she
could perform in a  satisfactory  manner  in  a  controlled,  slower  clinic
setting and felt that she had  good  clinical  knowledge  in  most  settings
should be given strong consideration in  restoring  unlimited  primacy  care
privileges.

Counsel's statement is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice  that  would  warrant  full  relief  of  the
applicant's requests.  We  note  that  the  credentials  hearing  committee,
after deliberation of all the  facts  of  her  case,  recommended  that  she
should not practice in  an  ER  setting  and  that  she  should  be  allowed
clinical privileges with 100 percent chart review and reevaluation  after  a
period of time.  Her commander  concurred  with  that  recommendation.   The
MPRB reviewed the facts of her case and made  their  recommendation  to  the
AF/SG.  After review of all the facts of her case and consideration  of  her
appeal, the AF/SG subsequently concurred with  the  recommendations  of  the
MPRB.  The applicant contends that  the  actions  taken  to  revoke  her  ER
privileges and limit her to clinical duties were arbitrary, capricious,  and
were in violation of laws and policy; and requests that those  findings  and
determination be removed from her records.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record, it is our opinion  that  the  actions  taken  to  affect
revocation of her ER privileges and restrict her to clinical practices  were
taken  appropriately  and  in  accordance   with   established   directives.
Evidence has not been presented which would lead  us  to  believe  that  her
commander abused his discretionary authority in  this  matter  or  that  the
actions taken against the applicant were based on anything  other  than  her
own performance.  Upon her application for ER clinical privileges,  she  was
reevaluated in an ER setting and it was further  confirmed  and  recommended
that she should not be placed in an ER department  and  she  be  limited  to
duties in a clinical setting.  We note the  applicant's  requests  that  the
adverse correspondence  provided  to  the  MPRB  be  rescinded,  or  in  the
alternative amended.  However, we carefully reviewed the data  contained  in
the Adverse Action Report provided to the MPRB and are  not  persuaded  that
the data therein is factually incorrect or that the  report  was  improperly
submitted.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility regarding these matters, and adopt their rationale  as  basis
for our conclusion that  she  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented warranting  approval  of
the applicant's request to receive Additional  Special  Pay  (ASP)  for  the
years 1998 and 1999.   A  review  of  her  pay  records  reflects  that  she
remained eligible for, and continued to receive payments  on  her  Incentive
Special Pay, Multi-year Special Pay, Board Certification Pay,  and  Variable
Special Pay contracts.  Based on our review of the evidence  of  record,  it
is our opinion that although her ER privileges were revoked,  the  MPRB  had
determined that she was qualified to perform in a clinical  setting.   While
we believe that it was at her commander's  discretion  to  relegate  her  to
other duties, we note that based on the findings of the MPRB, the  applicant
could have practiced in a clinical setting and  therefore  was  entitled  to
the Additional Special Pay.  Accordingly, we recommend that her  records  be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

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:

      a.  On 27 July 1998, she executed, and competent  authority  approved,
a 1-year Additional Special Pay Contract, effective 28 July 1998.

      b.  On 27 July 1999, she executed, and competent  authority  approved,
a 1-year Additional Special Pay Contract, effective 28 July 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-01487  in
Executive Session on 18 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGZC, dated 16 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF1, dated 25 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 Nov 02.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Vice Chair


AFBCMR 02-01487




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  On 27 July  1998,  she  executed,  and  competent  authority
approved, a 1-year Additional Special Pay Contract, effective 28 July 1998.

            b.  On 27 July  1999,  she  executed,  and  competent  authority
approved, a 1-year Additional Special Pay Contract, effective 28 July 1999.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency