ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-02707

            COUNSEL:  DAVID P. SHELDON
                         KAREN L. HECKER

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration and any other matters  presented
regarding his separation.

Specifically, he requests:

1.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR), signed 14 Aug  96,  stand  as  the
official OPR for the rating period  of  8  January  1996  through  14 August
1996, with the addition of expected concurrence by the reviewer.

2.  The M0596A  (November  1996)  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  be
corrected with removal of adverse action references in Section IV  and  with
a favorable promotion recommendation.

3.  His OPR, rendered for the period 15 August 1996 though  14 August  1997,
be declared void and removed from his records.

4.  He be considered for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the  CY96A  (M0596A)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board, which convened on 12  November  1996,  and  any  subsequent
boards for which the corrections were not a matter of record.

5.  He be considered for continuation by a Selective Continuation Board.

6.  Elimination of blank lines or “white  space”  from  both  the  14 August
1996 OPR and the M0596A PRF.

7.  Removal of the Adverse Action  Report  from  the  National  Practitioner
Data Bank (NPDB).

8.  Restoration of active duty status, with all regular  and  special  pays,
and restoration of  full  and  unrestricted  privileges  in  Obstetrics  and
Gynecology.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 September 2001, the Board considered a similar  application  pertaining
to the applicant.  After  a  careful  review  of  his  application  and  the
supporting documents, the Board denied the applicant’s initial requests  for
correction  of  his  record.   However,  the  Board  found  the  applicant’s
discharge technically flawed and therefore recommended that his  records  be
corrected to show that he  was  not  discharged  from  all  appointments  on
26 November  1997,  but  was  continued  on  active  duty  and  was  ordered
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to his home of record (home of  selection)
until 30 June 1998, on which date he was honorably discharged in  the  grade
of major, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3207  (Nonselection,  Permanent
Promotion).  The Director, Air Force  Review  Boards  Agency,  accepted  the
Board’s  recommendation  on  18  October  2001.   Complete  copies  of   the
Memorandum for the  Chief  of  Staff  and  the  Record  of  Proceedings  are
attached at Exhibit O.

On 25 November 2003, the applicant filed suit in the United States Court  of
Federal Claims.  He claims that the Board’s  previous  decision  to  correct
his military records to reflect he was separated from the Air Force for  not
being selected for promotion, twice over, to lieutenant colonel resulted  in
his improper discharge.  The applicant is seeking  reinstatement  to  active
duty with back pay, allowances,  attorney’s  fees  and  costs,  as  well  as
retroactive promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel.   The  applicant
and the United States filed a joint motion for the case to  be  remanded  to
the AFBCMR for review to consider the applicant’s claim that he is  entitled
to a Special Selection Board (SSB)  and  any  other  matters  the  applicant
presents in writing to the AFBCMR  regarding  his  separation.   A  complete
copy of the Remand Order and  accompanying  memorandum  from  AFLSA/JACL  is
attached at Exhibit P.

On 30 April 2004, applicant’s counsel submitted  a  37-page  document,  with
attachments, for the Board’s consideration.   Counsel  states  that,  during
the  Board’s  first  review  of  this  case,  they  found  the   applicant’s
administrative separation technically flawed, but determined he  would  have
left active duty anyway since he had been passed over  twice  for  promotion
to lieutenant colonel.  Counsel believes the remedy  ordered  by  the  Board
was erroneous.  The Board’s prior decision failed to take into account  that
the applicant’s nonselections for lieutenant colonel were  directly  related
to the improper motives and actions of his  command,  just  as  the  adverse
credentials  and  administrative  discharge  actions  were.   If  the   1996
selection  board  considered  applicant’s  incomplete  Officer   Performance
Report, closing August 1996, Air Force regulations  were  violated  and  the
applicant must be given an SSB.   Even if the CY96A selection board did  not
consider the incomplete OPR, the  AFBCMR  should  still  order  an  SSB  for
further error and injustice.  If the cited selection board  only  considered
the PRF, they only had part of the story.  There is no evidence  the  senior
rater informed the applicant of his right to submit  a  rebuttal  letter  to
the selection board.  Although the PRF  did  indicate  that  the  privileges
revocation was “pending appeal,” the selection board was not aware that  the
applicant had a detailed and persuasive rebuttal to the claims that  led  to
the  revocation.   The  same  problem  occurred  the  following  year.   The
applicant’s second selection board met with only an adverse PRF and not  the
current OPR and, more importantly, its rebuttal.  As had happened  in  1996,
there is no evidence the senior rater informed the applicant  of  his  right
to submit a rebuttal letter to the selection board in response  to  the  “Do
Not Promote” recommendation on the PRF.  Counsel asserts that the  1997  PRF
is inaccurate as it does not present a complete picture of  the  applicant’s
status.  If  the  CY97  selection  board  had  known  that  the  applicant’s
privileges had been restored and he was now authorized to  perform  clinical
duties and was being transferred to another  base,  it  clearly  would  have
impacted their decision on whether he should be  promoted.   It  is  unclear
whether  a  Selective  Continuation  Board  was  convened  to  consider  the
applicant for selective continuation following his second  nonselection  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97A selection board.  There  is  no
evidence in the applicant’s records that he was considered  by  a  Selective
Continuation Board  as  required  by  Air  Force  Instruction  36-2501.   As
stated, the timing and substance of  the  command’s  documentation  in  1997
ensured that any board would have an incomplete picture of  the  applicant’s
status.  In  addition,  the  applicant  continues  to  ask  that  his  prior
requests to the AFBCMR also be  granted.    A  complete  copy  of  counsel’s
submission is attached at Exhibit Q.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE provided the following advisory opinion  concerning  the  OPR,
closing 14 August 1996; the 1996 PRF; the OPR, closing 14 August 1997;  and,
SSB consideration.

DPPPE states the applicant did not provide any  substantiated  documentation
to support his allegation that the OPR, closing 14 August 1996, and  written
as a meets standards, was rewritten as a referral OPR after  he  denied  the
wing commander’s spouse a medical referral.  In addition,  no  documentation
has been provided to support his contention that this form of reprisal  took
place.  DPPPE indicates that, in accordance with the governing  instruction,
copies of reports filed in the unit (UPRG)  and  command  record  group  are
working copies until the report becomes a matter of record,  which  is  when
the report is filed in the Officer’s Selection Record (OSR).

With regard to removal of all adverse action references  in  Section  IV  of
the applicant’s November 1996 PRF, the IG  investigation  he  provided  does
not substantiate his allegations that the negative comments  were  based  on
the cited referral incident.  To change Section IV of the  PRF,  the  senior
rater will need to demonstrate there was a material error in the  PRF.   The
requirements for  senior  rater  and  management  level  review  president’s
concurrence have not been met.

With regard to applicant’s request  for  removal  of  the  OPR,  closing  14
August 1997, no substantiated documentation has  been  provided  to  support
his contention that this evaluation was not an accurate and fair  assessment
of his performance.  The applicant was cited for unsatisfactory  performance
during the reporting period in that he received a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR)
on 26 February 1997 and he was removed from patient care duties  during  the
reporting period.  There has been no determination  by  any  authority  that
his removal from patient care duties was in error or unjust; therefore,  the
comment is still accurate and valid.

DPPPE verified the top OPRs in applicant’s OSR when he  was  considered  for
promotion by the  CY96A  and  CY97A  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Boards  and  provided  the  following  information.    The   CY96A   Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (CSB) convened on 12 November 1996.   The
OPR, closing 14 August 1996, was filed and placed into the  applicant’s  OSR
on 5 November 1997 (after the CSB).  Therefore, the 14 August 1996  OPR  was
not the top report.  The CY97A Central Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board
convened on 5 November 1997.  The OPR, closing  14 August  1997,  was  filed
and placed into the applicant’s OSR on  5 February  1998  (after  the  CSB).
Therefore, the OPR on top for the CY97A CSB was the OPR  closing  14  August
1996.


HQ AFPC/DPPPOO provided the following comments  concerning  the  applicant’s
request for Selective Continuation Board consideration.  If the  applicant’s
records are changed and he is granted supplemental  promotion  consideration
by the CY96A and CY97A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Medical  Corps  (MC)  Selection
Boards, and he is not promoted on either board, then he is eligible to  meet
the CY97A Major  MC  Selective  Continuation  Board.   The  CY97A  Major  MC
Selective  Continuation  Board  convened  in  conjunction  with  the   CY97A
Lieutenant Colonel MC Selection Board on 5  November  1997.   The  applicant
previously met the CY97A Selection Continuation Board and was  not  selected
for continuation.


DPPPE  strongly  recommends  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request  to
substitute his OPR closing 14 August 1996, void his OPR  closing  14  August
1997,  remove  negative  comments  contained  within  his  M0596A  PRF   and
consequently recommend denial for SSB consideration by the CY96A  and  CY97A
selection boards.  However, in the event it is determined  that  either  his
rating chain was biased or that his removal from patient care duties was  in
error or unjust, then  the  Board  should  consider  removing  the  negative
comments from the OPRs and PRFs or voiding them all together.  If the  Board
directs the removal of the negative comments or the removal of the  reports,
then DPPPE recommends SSB consideration by the  CY96A  and  CY97A  selection
boards with the changes.  Additionally, if the  applicant  is  not  selected
for promotion, then he is eligible to meet  the  CY97A  MC  Major  Selective
Continuation Board.

A complete copy of the evaluations from HQ AFPC/DPPPE and HQ AFPC/DPPPO  are
at Exhibit R.


HQ  USAF/JAA  provided  the  following  advisory  opinion  in  response   to
counsel’s assertions.

With respect to counsel’s argument  that  the  favorable  draft  OPR  should
stand as the official OPR in lieu of the eventual referral OPR,  JAA  states
that, while this position  is  understandable,  it  ignores  the  regulatory
mandate that until the OPR  is  filed  in  the  Officer’s  Selection  Record
(OSR), the report is a “working copy” and not a  matter  of  record.   As  a
working copy the OPR was subject to change  and  revisions  based  upon  the
assessments, or reassessments, of  the  rater  and  additional  rater.   The
referral report procedures were followed, the  reviewer  concurred  and  the
report then was entered into the applicant’s OSR making it  a  part  of  the
official record on or after 11 February 1997.  As  to  counsel’s  contention
that  the  CY96A  Central  Medical  Corps/Dental  Corps  (Major,  Lieutenant
Colonel,  Colonel)  Selection  Board  (12 November  1996)   considered   the
referenced OPR, JAA indicates that,  in  all  probability,  given  that  the
referenced OPR was not signed by the reviewer until  11  February  1997,  it
was not in the applicant’s military personnel records (MPR).

With regards to the request for reaccomplishment of  applicant’s  1996  PRF,
JAA indicates that the  basis  for  the  PRF  comment  was  the  Credentials
Function Meeting Reports and the  resulting  Credentialling  Recommendation.
The reports and recommendation constituted “reliable information about  duty
performance and conduct,” and were properly considered for inclusion in  the
applicant’s PRF by his senior rater.  Having  received  a  “Do  Not  Promote
This Board” recommendation, the applicant should have been provided  a  memo
telling him that he had the right to submit a  letter  in  response  to  the
Central Selection Board (CSB).  Whether or not the applicant  received  such
a memo is uncertain and apparently the applicant’s MPR contains no  evidence
that he received such a memo.

In response to  counsel’s  request  for  removal  of  the  applicant’s  OPR,
closing 14 August 1997, based on the  additional  rater  not  achieving  the
required minimum  of  60  days  of  supervision.   Raters,  vice  additional
raters, are required to have at least 60 days of minimum supervision of  the
ratee in order to complete an OPR.  JAA states  that  there  is  no  minimum
supervision period required for additional  raters  and,  consequently,  the
additional rater’s evaluation and assessment of the applicant was proper.

Similar to counsel’s  request  concerning  applicant’s  1996  PRF,  he  also
requests that the 1997 PRF be reaccomplished.  The basis for his request  is
that the PRF is inaccurate  and  presented  an  incomplete  picture  of  his
active duty (AD) status.  JAA indicates that while it may be  true  that  at
the time the PRF (1997) was completed and  provided  to  the  CSB,  the  Air
Force Surgeon  General  had  ordered  the  restoration  of  the  applicant’s
supervised privileges, it remains the senior rater’s prerogative  to  select
and include, or not include, relevant information about the  officer’s  duty
performance and conduct.  The applicant’s 1997  PRF,  similar  to  his  1996
PRF,  included  a  “Do  Not  Promote  This  Board”  recommendation  and  the
applicant should have been provided a memo  telling  him  that  he  had  the
right to submit a letter in  response  to  the  CSB.   Whether  or  not  the
applicant received such a memo is uncertain and again  the  applicant’s  MPR
contains no evidence that he received such a memo.

With regards to the removal of the National Practitioner  Data  Bank  (NPDB)
adverse  report  based  on  regulatory  irregularities,   other   than   the
applicant’s assertion, that the adverse report was sent to  the  NPDB  prior
to the Air Force Surgeon General’s final  credentials  appeal  decision,  no
other  substantiating  evidence  has  been  provided.   JAA  indicates  that
whether or not any regulatory irregularities occurred  or  exist  should  be
determined by the AFBCMR based on the objective evidence.   The  presumption
is that regulatory compliance occurred and nothing provided  or  claimed  by
the applicant alters this presumption.

Counsel’s final requests to the Board include:  return to active duty,  with
full and unrestricted medical privileges, that he meet  an  SSB  and  he  be
awarded all promotions.  JAA states that independent of the  issues  related
to the applicant’s requests above, is the propriety  of  the  administrative
separation action.  The administrative separation action,  as  well  as  its
basis, is and remains an independent action.  JAA  has  previously  provided
an advisory opinion on the applicant’s administrative separation action  and
reaffirms  it.   If  the  Board  were  to  contemplate  any  action  in  the
applicant’s case, it may consider directing an SSB solely  for  the  purpose
of resolving any potential regulatory errors.  After due SSB  consideration,
the Board may then direct corrective action, if any, as deemed appropriate.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit S.
_________________________________________________________________

RESPONSE TO AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant’s  counsel  responded  to  the  Air  Force  evaluations.   Counsel
discusses the issue of the rater and  additional  rater  making  changes  to
their evaluations up until the filing  of  the  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) in the Officer’s Selection  Record  (OSR).   Although  it  may  be  an
accurate statement in theory, counsel states it ignores the  fact  that,  in
this case, improper influences  were  brought  to  bear  on  the  rater  and
additional rater in order to convince them to change their opinions  of  the
applicant.  Counsel opines that it is an illogical  requirement,  under  the
facts of this case, to have the applicant seek senior rater  and  management
level  concurrence  in  order  to  have  an  OPR  or  PRF  error  corrected.
Regarding the Letter of Reprimand (LOR), this  document  was  created  as  a
paper trail to support an administrative discharge action.  As to  applicant
receiving notification of his right  to  submit  a  letter  to  the  central
selection boards, circumstantial evidence demonstrates  that  the  applicant
did not receive the notifications for  either  promotion  boards  (1996  and
1997).  Whenever the applicant was provided an  opportunity  to  respond  to
adverse paperwork from his command, he did so.  There is no doubt  he  would
have availed himself of the opportunity to  inform  these  promotion  boards
about the extraordinary difficulties he was having with his command and  the
disagreement  he  had  with  his  command’s  comments   on   the   Promotion
Recommendation Forms (PRFs).  The fact that no such  notification  memoranda
or response to them exists is clear evidence that the Air Force  denied  the
applicant his right to submit letters to the selection boards,  clearly  and
fatally prejudicing his chances of being  promoted  to  lieutenant  colonel.
In addition, there  is  no  evidence  to  support  the  assertion  that  the
applicant was  considered  for  selective  continuation.   Accordingly,  the
advisory opinion’s statement is simply speculation and such  speculation  is
insufficient for this Board to consider.

Counsel requests the Board order unredacted copies of the Inspector  General
 (IG) investigations conducted in January 1997 and February  1998.   Counsel
believes  these  documents  are  necessary  and  relevant  to  this  Board’s
consideration of the issues raised.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit U.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Pursuant to the remand order of the United  States  Court  of  Federal
Claims  that  the  Board  review  the  applicant’s  request  for   promotion
consideration to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) and any other matters  counsel  presents  regarding  applicant’s
separation, we have conducted a thorough analysis of the  case  file,  which
now  includes  counsel’s  submission  requesting,   in   addition   to   SSB
consideration, consideration of the applicant’s case and  advisory  opinions
addressing the issues under review.   As  a  result  of  our  more  in-depth
review, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence of  the  existence  of
error or injustice to  warrant  approval  of  the  applicant’s  request  for
promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  SSBs,
provided he writes letters to the selection board presidents.   In  reaching
this conclusion, we observed the following:

      a.    Applicant’s assertion that he was not notified of his  right  to
submit a letter to the CY96A and CY97A selection boards in response  to  the
M0596A and M0597A Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) recommending he  not
be promoted is noted.  Nonetheless,  the  presumption  of  regularity  would
support a finding that the applicant  was  notified  about  this  right  but
declined to exercise it.  However, based upon the  evidence  of  record,  we
find  the  applicant  has  overcome  this  presumption.   Specifically,  the
applicant’s record contained no documentation of the required  notification.
  Moreover,  the  applicant  categorically  denied  he  had  received   such
notification.  Lastly, as applicant’s counsel  pointed  out,  the  applicant
had consistently responded to numerous actions taken by his command, and  it
would appear to be out of character for him to fail to take the  opportunity
to comment on such an important  issue  (promotion)  had  he  been  properly
notified.  Having found that the failure to notify was an error that  denied
the applicant full and  fair  consideration  for  promotion,  we  recommend,
provided he  writes  letters  to  the  board  presidents,  his  request  for
promotion consideration by SSBs for the cited selection boards be approved.

      b.    Consistent with the analysis that SSBs are required to  grant  a
full and fair chance of  promotion,  we  believe  the  applicant  should  be
considered by a selective continuation board should the SSBs not select  him
for promotion.  Although the applicant has  previously  met  a  continuation
selection board,  the  selective  continuation  boards  following  his  now-
ordered SSBs will have presented to them the applicant’s rebuttal letter  to
the “do not promote” recommendation.

2.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice concerning the following requests.

      a.    With regard to the  issue  of  the  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR), signed 14 Aug 96, to stand as the official OPR for the rating  period
closing 14 August 1996, with addition comments from the reviewer,  we  agree
with HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s opinion that a draft OPR is just that, a draft and  not
a  matter  of  record  until  completed  and  filed.   We   considered   the
applicant’s argument that the performance report  was  altered  in  reprisal
for the applicant challenging the decision to  allow  the  wing  commander’s
wife off-base care.  However, after reviewing  the  Inspector  General  (IG)
investigation concerning this specific allegation and noting  it  was  found
unsubstantiated, we agree with its conclusion.  Additionally, we  have  seen
no rating chain support indicating they were coerced to change  the  report.
In view of the foregoing, we  find  the  OPR  of  record  accurate  and  the
comments to be supported by the evidence.  Thus, the  applicant  has  failed
to establish, to our satisfaction, that  replacing  the  OPR  of  record  is
appropriate.

      b.    We are unpersuaded by the evidence  presented  that  the  M0596A
Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  should  be  corrected  as  requested.
Although not medical doctors, we noted the  suspension  of  the  applicant’s
privileges had a basis in obvious problems with patient care, and  therefore
was  a   reasonable   exercise   of   the   hospital   staff’s   discretion.
Additionally, the applicant did not show in any other manner  in  which  the
suspension of  privileges  constituted  an  error  or  injustice.   We  also
believe describing  the  privileges  as  revoked  pending  appeal  (emphasis
added) showed a good faith effort to be fair and accurate in describing  the
situation since  adding  the  phrase  “pending  appeal”  actually  made  the
description  of  the  privileges  situation  more  accurate.   The   Surgeon
General’s final decision to allow supervised  privileges  did  not,  in  our
opinion, invalidate or contradict the problems identified with patient  care
that  served  as  the  basis  for  the  original  decision  to  suspend  the
applicant’s privileges.  Having found the comments on the PRF  accurate,  we
find  no  basis  to  remove  those  comments.   Lastly,  in  view   of   our
recommendation to grant SSB consideration, the  applicant  remains  free  to
discuss whatever deficiencies or inaccuracies he believes this PRF  contains
in his letter to the board president.

      c.    After careful  consideration  of  the  applicant’s  request  for
elimination of “white space” from both  the  14  August  1996  OPR  and  the
M0596A PRF, we are unpersuaded that  corrective  action  is  warranted.   We
first interpreted this request as  asking  for  elimination  of  the  “white
space” by adding additional evaluative  commentary.   Having  no  first-hand
knowledge of, or chance to observe, the applicant’s duty performance, we  do
not believe it would be appropriate for the Board to select  or  draft  text
to reduce or eliminate the white space.  Moreover,  even  assuming  arguendo
that leaving blank spaces on the aforementioned  documents  communicates  an
opinion of the evaluator, there is no instruction or  policy  that  prevents
the evaluator from doing so.  Lastly, were the panel to exercise what  would
amount to questionable authority to require the evaluators to  add  text  to
these documents, it is not  at  all  clear  that  the  evaluator  would  add
positive comments to the cited documents given the  PRF’s  overall  “do  not
promote” recommendation.  If the added comments were  negative  or  lukewarm
in their tone, the applicant might very  well  contest  the  relief  he  had
sought.

       d.     We  are  unpersuaded  by  the  evidence  presented  that   the
applicant’s OPR, closing  14  August  1997,  should  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.  Although counsel  asserts  the  additional  rater
had insufficient supervision, HQ USAF/JAA points out  there  is  no  minimum
supervision  period  required  for  additional  raters.   In  addition,   as
indicated above, the statement indicating the  applicant  had  been  removed
from patient care duties was an accurate statement of  an  action  that  was
well founded.  Moreover, it remained accurate and current as of the date  of
the closeout of the OPR.  The subsequent approval of supervisory  privileges
on 9 October 1997 did not invalidate or make the description of his  removal
from patient care duties on this  OPR  incorrect  or  inaccurate.   This  is
especially true given the fact that the approval of  supervisory  privileges
was in large part based on what was judged to be procedural  issues  related
to his privilege revocation.   As  previously  noted,  the  action  granting
privileges under supervision did not call into question the  validity  of  a
statement that he had been removed from patient care responsibilities.

      e.    With respect to removal of the Adverse Action  Report  from  the
National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), we first noted  that  we  could  not
directly order the removal from the data bank  since  it  is  not  a  record
under the control of the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force.   We  could  order
removal from the applicant’s credential  privilege  files;  or,  inform  the
data bank that the original notification was in error.  With that  resolved,
we found that the report approved in its specific  wording  by  the  Surgeon
General on 28 September 1997 was an accurate statement of actions  taken  in
regards to the applicant,  and  that  it  remained  accurate  after  he  was
eventually given privileges under supervision.  In addition,  we  found  the
privilege revocation action was supported by serious and recurring  problems
with the standard of care, and not in reprisal for complaints  submitted  by
the applicant.  Accordingly, we find no error or injustice in the  reporting
action that needs to be corrected.

      f.    Although not specifically annotated in the  applicant’s  request
for correction of his record, we noted that he would also  like  removal  of
references to adverse actions  on  the  1997  PRF  prepared  for  the  1997A
Lieutenant   Colonel   Medical   Corps/Dental   Corps    Selection    Board.
Specifically, Section IV of the PRF, which states:  “Major K-----  is  being
involuntarily separated from  the  Air  Force”  and  “Removed  from  primary
clinical duties  and  responsibilities.”   In  asking  for  the  removal  of
references to adverse actions from his PRF, the  applicant  makes  primarily
the same arguments as he makes in regards  to  the  earlier  reports;  i.e.,
mentioning removal from duties and administrative  separation  actions  that
were not ultimately completed make the reports  inaccurate.   Regarding  the
removal action from primary patient care duties, we note  that  this  is  an
accurate  statement  even  though  credentialing  actions  had  resulted  in
supervised privileges by the  date  of  the  promotion  board.   As  to  the
administrative  separation  action,  we  noted  the   phrasing   “has   been
initiated” may  have  been  preferable,  but  use  of  the  term  “is  being
separated” accurately reflects a process in motion at the  time  the  report
was written.  The promotion board members would  know  from  their  military
experience that  the  separation  action  might  not  ultimately  have  been
approved or completed.  From their experience  they  would  also  know  that
recent occurrences are  frequently  not  reflected  on  PRFs  coming  before
promotion boards.  Lastly, the applicant will have a chance  to  comment  on
the contested PRF’s and can address this issue in his response,  which  will
be part of the record presented to the SSB.

      g.    Counsel’s concern regarding the  top  OPRs  in  the  applicant’s
Officer Selection Record (OSR) when he was considered for promotion  by  the
CY96A and CY97A selection boards has been noted.   In  this  respect,  DPPPE
has verified that the OPR, closing 14 August 1996, was not  the  top  report
when he was considered by the CY96A selection board.  However,  it  was  the
top report when the applicant was considered  for  promotion  by  the  CY97A
selection board.

      h.    We note the applicant’s request for restoration of  active  duty
status, with all regular and special  pays,  and  restoration  of  full  and
unrestricted  privileges  in  Obstetrics  and   Gynecology.    Although   we
previously invalidated the administrative separation of  the  applicant,  we
do not find that he has met his burden of proof to show he would  have  been
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.   In  this  decision,  we  now
find the applicant was not given full and fair consideration  for  promotion
and thus have ordered SSBs that will allow  him  to  contest  both  “do  not
promote” recommendations.  Ordering the SSBs, and  not  a  direct  promotion
and return  to  active  duty,  is  the  appropriate  correction  of  records
necessary to prevent an error or injustice.  It would be premature  for  the
Board to consider the reinstatement issue at this time  pending  receipt  of
the Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  results.   Regarding  the  prospective
restoration of full and unrestricted privileges, the panel noted that  there
was a basis for the decision to restrict privileges, and the Board finds  no
basis to require prospective privileging  of  this  applicant.   Furthermore
should the applicant be promoted through the SSB  process  and  returned  to
active duty, the  question  of  what  privileges  he  should  hold  will  be
reviewed by competent medical  authorities.   This  Board  has  neither  the
information  nor  the  specialized  skill  and  training  to  make  such   a
prospective credentialing determination.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, provided he  writes  a  letter  to  the  board  president,  be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar  Years  1996A  and  1997A  Lieutenant
Colonel Medical Corps/Dental Corps (MC/DC) Selection Boards.

It is further recommended that, if he is not selected for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB, he be considered for continuation  by
the CY97A  MC  Major  Selective  Continuation  Board;  that  his  record  be
evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and  were  not
selected  by  the  CY97A  MC  Major  Continuation  Board;  and,  if  he   is
recommended for continuation by the Continuation Board, the Air Force  Board
for Correction of Military Records be advised of that recommendation at  the
earliest practicable date, so that all  necessary  and  appropriate  actions
may be completed.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-1999-02707
in Executive Session on 16 September 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
              Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-1999-02707.

      Exhibit O. Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, and the Record
            of Proceedings, dated 18 Oct 01, with Exhibits.
      Exhibit P. Letter, AFLSA/JACL, dated 30 Mar 04, with the
                 US Court of Federal Claims Order, dated 23 Mar 04.
      Exhibit Q. Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Apr 04, with attachment.
      Exhibit R. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 28 Jun 04.
      Exhibit S. Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 4 Aug 04.
      Exhibit T. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Aug 04.
      Exhibit U. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 Aug 04.
      Exhibit V. Inspector General Investigations, withdrawn.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair


AFBCMR BC-1999-02707




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 provided he writes a letter to the board president,
be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special
Selection Board for the Calendar Years 1996A and 1997A Lieutenant Colonel
Medical Corps/Dental Corps (MC/DC) Selection Boards.

      It is further recommended that, if he is not selected for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB, he be considered for
continuation by the CY97A MC Major Selective Continuation Board; that his
record be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and
were not selected by the CY97A MC Major Continuation Board; and, if he is
recommended for continuation by the Continuation Board, the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records be advised of that recommendation at the
earliest practicable date, so that all necessary and appropriate actions
may be completed.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency