RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00572
            INDEX CODE: 111.01
  XXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  20 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of          10  February
2003 through 31 July 2003 be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes this OPR to be inaccurate, unjust and/or  unfairly  prejudicial
to her career and hereby applies for review of  the  report  under  AFI  36-
2401.

In support of her application, the applicant  provides  a  personal  letter,
memo to 49FW/CC, letter  to  her  congressman,  copy  of  the  referral  OPR
package,  emails,  record  of  court-martial  trial,  medical  records,   IG
Complaint, medical appeal records, references and admin hold letter, AF  IMT
233, Specific Period of Time Contract and personnel information sheet.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on      10  February
2002. She was honorably separated from active duty effective  1  April  2005
and transferred to the Obligated Reserve in the grade of captain.

On 10 February 2003,  the  applicant  was  assigned  duties  as  Officer  in
Charge, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT).

On 23 May 2003, the applicant’s commander referred her to  a  mental  health
evaluation  because  of  problems  handling  work   stress,   managing   the
responsibilities of her work,  apparent  difficulty  focusing  on  necessary
tasks, and repeated absences from work. On 30  May  2003,  she  was  removed
from ADAPT position.

On 17 June 2003, the applicant was  referred  for  a  non-emergency  command
directed evaluation (CDE). The evaluation was significantly limited  due  to
the applicant’s refusal to answer  questions  about  her  current  and  past
psychological functioning and  treatment,  current  and  past  relationships
with coworkers, and current and past occupational functioning as related  to
any psychological problems.  Her  commander  was  advised  to  consult  with
available legal resources to determine if conclusions regarding  fitness  or
suitability for continued military service can be inferred from her  refusal
to participate in this CDE as well as from the documentation  regarding  her
behavior submitted by her peers and superiors.

On 31 July 2003, the applicant was notified  her  clinical  privileges  were
held in abeyance for a delay in treatment on  a  patient.  This  action  was
taken in response to a patient who identified to ADAPT on 10 July 2003,  and
subsequently  on  30  July  was  transported  and  admitted  to  GCRMC   and
transferred to Mesilla Valley for Acute Alcohol Intoxication. This delay  in
treatment could potentially have irreparable harm to  the  patient  and  his
military career.  Applicant’s clinical  privileges  were  temporary  removed
from 31 July until  29  August  2003.   On  29  August  2003,  her  clinical
privileges restriction was extended an additional  30  days,  for  delay  in
treatment.

On 4 September  2003,  the  Commander,  49th  Aeromedical-Dental  Operations
Squadron convened a Peer Review Inquiry to review four case files  in  which
the applicant acted as the primary provider.  After  careful  consideration,
the reviewers determined the standard of care was not  met  on  any  of  the
cases. Additionally, it was determined that there were 32 additional  Family
Advocacy cases which had inadequate or completely absent documentation.  The
Peer Review Inquiry recommended the applicant’s  credentials  be  restricted
from “1” to “2” (supervised) and that she staff all cases and charts with  a
credentialed staff member prior  to  the  patient  leaving  the  clinic.  An
additional  recommendation  was  for  the  applicant  to  be  afforded   the
opportunity to perform a period of  remedial  retraining  at  an  Air  Force
training program to ensure she fully understands her position (training  was
arranged at Langley AFB Virginia for March 2004).

On 9 September 2003, the applicant received  notification  of  a  Commanding
Officer Referral for mental health evaluation from her commander.

On 17 October 2003, the staff clinical  psychologist  provided  a  narrative
summary to a commander directed  mental  health  evaluation.  The  following
findings and recommendations were made:

      a. Available information indicates applicant does not  currently  have
a service-disqualifying Axis I (V62.20  Occupational  Problem)  or  Axis  II
(V71.90 No Diagnosis on Axis II) mental disorder. Her profile is  considered
S-1.  The  applicant  is  considered  mentally/emotionally  fit/suited   for
deployment and other military duties. There is no indication of any  current
mental health condition of such significance  as  to  warrant  referral  for
Medical Evaluation Board action.

      b. Recommend, if the applicant is not currently on a  duty-restricting
physical profile, that any decision to return her to patient care duties  or
to  assign  to  other  duties  be  based  upon  applicant’s   present   duty
performance, applicant’s present attitude/morale, overall work history,  and
other administrative considerations.

      c. If the  applicant  is  returned  to  patient  care  duties,  it  is
recommended that the SGH and Credentialing Board require  the  applicant  to
satisfactorily  complete  a  set  period  of  close  clinical   supervision,
including timely co-signature of all clinical notes, before  being  returned
to a fully credentialed status.

      d. Applicant is currently  considered  mentally  competent  and  fully
accountable for the applicant’s actions. She is able to tell the  difference
between  right  and  wrong,  able  to  control  her  actions,  and  able  to
anticipate the possible consequences of her actions.

      e. Should the applicant  show  a  recurrence  of  unsatisfactory  duty
performance and/or emotional  instability,  recommend  a  prompt  commander-
directed urinalysis and blood alcohol test. In  the  unlikely  event  member
shows symptoms indicative  of  a  mental  health  emergency  (disclosure  of
suicidal or homicidal thinking, indications of hallucinations or  delusions,
or depression or anxiety of such severity as to interfere with  basic  daily
functioning) a prompt escorted referral to the nearest emergency room  would
be appropriate.

On 28 October  2003,  the  Credentials  Function  met  and  recommended  the
applicant’s privileges be  restricted.   The  Commander,       49th  Medical
Group restricted the applicant’s privileges from code  “1”  fully  competent
to code “2” supervised privileges for all patient cases  for  a  period  not
less  than  three  months  nor  longer  than  six  months.   The   applicant
acknowledged receipt and was advised of her  right  to  request  (within  30
days) a hearing and of her right to appeal the decision  to  the  Commander,
Air Force Medical Operations Agency  (AFMOA),  through  the  AFMOA  Clinical
Quality Management Division (AFMOA/SGOC).

On 2 December 2003 the commander rendered her  final  decision  to  restrict
her privileges to “Code 2”, supervised privileges for all patients care  for
a minimum of three months because the applicant had not requested a  hearing
within the required 30 days.

On 11 February 2004, the applicant was  rendered  a  referral  OPR  for  the
period 10 February through 31 July 2003 and a  letter  was  acknowledged  by
the applicant on that  same  date.  Applicant  submitted  rebuttal  comments
concerning the referral  report  within  the  required  time  period  on  23
February 2004.

On  24  March  2004,  based  on  the  recommendation  from  the  Credentials
Function, the applicant was awarded Supervised Clinical Privileges  from  25
March 2004 through 25 March 2005. Applicant was scheduled to be  temporarily
assigned to Langley Air Force Base VA Medical Group for supervised  remedial
clinical training sessions.

On 29 March 2004, while en route to Langley Air Force Base  VA  to  complete
six weeks of remedial training due to an adverse credentialing  action,  the
applicant called the local sheriff in Crossville, TN alleging she was  being
followed.  The  applicant  was  contacted  by  the  sheriff  and   she   was
transported to a local hospital for observation.  As  part  of  the  medical
evaluation,  she  provided  a  urine  sample  that   tested   positive   for
methamphetamine and methadone.  She  was  then  admitted  to  Moccasin  Bend
Mental Health Institute in Tennessee for acute psychosis. (See  OSI  Report,
Exhibit G).

On 5 April 2005,  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  approved
removal of the OPR rendered for the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July 2004.

On 10 June 2004, a mental health evaluation revealed the  applicant  had  an
episode of impaired reality testing  en  route  from  her  home  base  to  a
training assignment, and that she has had problems with her mood  since  she
was  diagnosed  with  a  thyroid  disorder,  initially  hyperthyroidism  now
hypothyroidism.  A legal urine  drug  screen  revealed  methamphetamine  and
amphetamine use, which are associated with psychotic symptoms such as  those
observed in the applicant.  The evaluation concluded the applicant could  be
unsuitable for continued military service on the basis of the  diagnosis  of
a substance-induced psychotic disorder and that she met the criteria for  an
administrative separation.

On 30 July 2004, the Air  Force  Medical  Practice  Review  Board  concluded
there was insufficient documentation of evidence to support the  restriction
of  her  privileges.  The  board  concluded  a  period  of  Monitoring   and
Evaluation (M&E) for three to six months be done with a  plan  of  oversight
and routine feedback.

On 18 August 2004, the 49th Medical Group Commander  awarded  the  applicant
Regular Clinical Privileges and placed  her  in  monitoring  and  evaluation
(M&E)  for  a  period  of  three  to  six  months  or   until   satisfactory
demonstration of competency in all aspects of the Life Skills Flight.

On 9 November 2004, the applicant was referred to  a  general  court-martial
and charged with wrongful use of  methamphetamine,  in  Violation  of  UCMJ,
Article 124a. A panel of officers found the applicant not guilty.

The applicant filed numerous complaints to  the  49  Fighter  Wing,  12  Air
Force, ACC SAF, and DOD Inspection Generals  (IG)  alleging  the  following:
(1) Her clinical privileges were restricted  and  suspended  inappropriately
in reprisal for her protected communications. (2) She was wrongly  issued  a
referral OPR for the period of  1  August  2003  through  31  July  2004  in
reprisal for her protected communication. (3) She  was  improperly  sent  on
too many  commander  directed  evaluations  in  reprisal  of  her  protected
communication. (4)  She  was  disapproved  for  extension  and  subsequently
separated in reprisal for her protected communication. (See Exhibit F)

The 49 Fighter Wing IG concluded that none  of  the  adverse  actions  taken
against  the  applicant,  specifically  the  allegations  addressed  in  the
Reprisal Complaint Analysis, were administered as resulted  of  any  of  her
protected  communications.  As  a  result  of  their  inquiry,   they   have
determined  that  there   was   no   wrongdoing   on   the   part   of   the
commander/management  and  that  all  adverse  actions  were  justified   as
indicated  by  the  preponderance  of  evidence.  Further,   it   is   their
determination that the applicant’s leadership  followed  decisions  inherent
within their authority. Lastly since  no  specific  protected  communication
can be  cited  and  no  specific  Responsible  Management  Official  can  be
determined, no reprisal occurred, and therefore, they  recommend  that  this
complaint be dismissed. (See Exhibit F)

On 9 January 2006, DoD IG reviewed the preliminary  analysis  and  concurred
that further investigation is not warranted under Title  10,  United  States
Code, Section 1034. They consider the matter closed.  (See Exhibit F)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial and stated  the  applicant’s  first  contention
for the 10 February through 31 July 2003 OPR, is the bullets in  Section  IV
Impact on Mission Accomplishment. The applicant states the  first  line  and
the last line seem to contradict each other. AFI 36-2406, Table  3.1.,  line
15 gives guidance on what to include in  Section  IV.  It  states,  “Address
only primary duty responsibilities and tasks assigned to  the  ratee  during
the reporting period that contributed to, or detracted from,  unit  mission.
The key word is reporting period. In this case, the rater started  with  the
bullets from the beginning of the reporting period to the end. The  comments
do not contradict one another;  they  show  a  picture  of  her  “impact  on
mission accomplishment” over the reporting period. It  could  very  well  be
that in the beginning of the reporting period she was  able  to  handle  the
case load and by the end of the reporting period she was less than  able  to
handle the case load. The rater has  the  authority  and  responsibility  to
document the information as he/she sees fit.

The applicant’s second  contention  is  the  bullets  in  Section  VI  Rater
Overall  Assessment:  “Successful  on-call  provider;  handle  crises…”  and
“Officership/clinical interventions short  of  expectation…”  The  applicant
believes these statements again contradict one another. It  is  the  rater’s
responsibility to assess and document what  the  ratee  did,  how  well  the
ratee did, and the potential based on that performance. The rater  uses  the
entire rating period to document the performance of the ratee.  Even  though
the bullets appear to be contradictory, again, they paint a picture  of  the
ratee’s performance over the entire reporting period. The ratee  might  have
performed well in the beginning of the rating period  and  over  the  entire
rating period, her  performance  may  have  slipped.  There  is  not  enough
information from the rating chain to determine  exactly  when  and  how  her
performance had slipped. From what is presented, the report is  a  fair  and
accurate account of the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  10  February
through 31 July 2003 OPR. The raters have  to  be  given  the  authority  to
document the ratee’s performance without  wondering  if  a  report  will  be
thrown out later.

The applicant’s third contention is the  applicant  does  not  know  if  the
49W/CC saw her rebuttal comments when he saw the report. In this  situation,
there was no reason nor is it mandatory for a  reviewer  to  “see”  rebuttal
comments. In the referral process the only evaluator  who  is  mandatory  to
“see” or “review the  rebuttal  comments  is  the  evaluator  named  in  the
referral memorandum, in this case the reviewer is not the evaluator.  It  is
a moot point whether he saw them or not, it has no impact  on  the  referral
process or the accuracy of the report.

The applicant’s fourth contention is she believes this  report  was  written
in reprisal because she had an article  138  complaint  against  the  rater.
There is nothing in this  application  from  the  IG  to  substantiate  this
allegation.  Without  a  report  of  investigation   to   substantiate   the
allegations it is not possible to make a decision on whether the report  was
written in reprisal. There is no other documentation to prove  this  concern
either. Although the applicant states she filed an IG complaint and  it  was
“mysteriously dropped on 19 August  2004”,  the  IG  office  does  send  out
letters explaining what happens to the complaint,  whether  the  information
was lost or the IG office decided  to  drop  the  complaint.  The  applicant
should request a letter from  the  DoD  IG  stating  what  happened  to  her
complaint to the best of their knowledge.

AFPC/DPPPE complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  stated  she  never
received any letters of reprimand or counseling  to  justify  the  marks  on
that referral OPR. She also does not believe that the bullets justify  these
marks. The bullets specifically pertain to the  reduction  in  credentialing
that had occurred and that decision was overturned.

Applicant separated from active duty on  1  April  2005  with  an  honorable
discharge. She is currently still a captain in the USAF Ready Reserves  with
a DOS of 9 November 2009.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting removal of  the  OPR  for  the
period ending 31 July 2003.  We  took  careful  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinions and recommendation of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility, in particular that of the Office of the  Inspector  General,
and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   Persuasive
evidence has not been provided which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
administrative actions taken by her  commander  were  beyond  her  scope  of
authority or that she abused her discretionary  authority  in  taking  those
actions.  Additionally, we are not persuaded by  the  evidence  provided  in
support of her appeal, that the contested report is not a true and  accurate
assessment of her performance during the specified time period or  that  the
comments  contained  in  the  report  were  in  error  or  contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing  instruction.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
00572 in Executive Session on 8 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

            Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
            Ms. Cheryl V. Johnson, Member
            Mr. August Doddato, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
00572 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Apr 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant, dated 14 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  IG Report 9 Jan 06, withdrawn.
   Exhibit G.  OSI Report, 3 Feb 06, withdrawn.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair