RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02312
            INDEX CODE:  134.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All information  related  to  an  adverse  action  taken  against  his
clinical privileges be expunged from his Provider Activity File (PAF),
Provider Credentials File (PCF), 48th Medical Group  (48 MDG),  United
States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) and  Air  Force  Medical  Operating
Agency (AFMOA) files.

The Air Force provide a letter directing that he is no longer required
to disclose the adverse action.

The cover sheet of Section III of the PCF at  Royal  Air  Force  (RAF)
Lakenheath be  modified  to  state  "No"  rather  than  "Yes"  to  the
existence of a DD Form 2499, Health Care Practitioner  Action  Report,
describing his incompetence and negligence;  to  the  existence  of  a
permanent credentials action; and to the existence of a DD Form  2526,
Case Abstract for Malpractice Claim, indicating a malpractice action.

The current AF Form 2817, Clinical Privileges  -   Pediatrician,  that
reflects the adverse privileging action be replaced with a new AF Form
2817 that would not reflect the adverse privileging action.

Dr. B---‘s AF  Form  1562,  Credentials  –  Evaluation  of  Healthcare
Practitioners, be replaced with the three AF Forms 1562  completed  by
Dr. S---'s peers.

The current  AF  Form  22,  Clinical  Privileges  Evaluation  Summary,
completed by Dr. B--- be replaced with an AF Form 22 completed by  the
current Medical Director of Pediatrics, Dr. T--- S---.

The Medical Peer Review document authored by Dr. B--- H--- be added to
Section III of the PCF.

The Memoranda for Record (MFRs) written by 30 witnesses to the PAF, be
added to the "Commendations and Complaints" Section, or  to  the  PCF,
Section III, the documents identified as B through ZZ in his letter of
appeal to AFMOA.

He be afforded an opportunity to review the "Legal Review" provided to
AFMOA.

His application for correction of military records be processed  as  a
case of "reprisal" pursuant to the Military Whistleblowers  Protection
Act (10 USC 1034).

The Air Force investigate and report Dr. A--- B--- and Dr.  K---  B---
for providing false testimonies  in  the  adverse  privileging  action
taken against him.

The Board’s decision not be made public, or, in the alternative,  that
personal and patient information be redacted.

He be compensated for anticipated legal costs associated with  ongoing
disclosure requirements in the amount of $12,000.00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The adverse action taken against him regarding his practice privileges
while he was assigned as a general pediatrician at RAF Lakenheath  was
based on false allegations,  which  were  refuted  in  writing  by  30
witnesses.  The adverse action was initiated as a result of the  death
of an infant patient on 13 Apr 06.  Two of his colleagues worked  with
him to attempt to save the patient’s life.  However, they  both  later
gave  testimonies  that  they  were  not  involved,  leading  to   the
allegation he did not appropriately seek help.  Three nurses  provided
written statements testifying that the other  two  pediatricians  were
indeed  heavily  involved  in  the  patient’s  medical  care.    These
individuals also made other false allegations, which were  refuted  by
multiple witnesses.

All military and civilian physicians are required to disclose  aspects
of their record of practice whenever applying for hospital  privileges
at a new hospital, a state medical license, and malpractice insurance.
 Specifically, physicians must disclose any lawsuits,  investigations,
disciplinary actions,  and  adverse  actions  pertaining  to  practice
privileges.  In the seven years he has been a doctor, he has never had
any such matters to disclose until  last  summer  when  his  commander
enacted the privileging action.   It  was  ultimately  determined  the
action was not warranted.  However, he is still required  to  disclose
the unwarranted adverse action every time he makes  a  change  to  his
practice.  It is common for a physician to have at least  one  lawsuit
to disclose, and he  considers  himself  fortunate  to  have  no  such
lawsuits to disclose.  An adverse action on his practicing  privileges
is far more discrediting than any lawsuit, and he  is  concerned  that
being forced to disclose this matter will haunt  him  for  his  entire
career.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  documentation
pertaining to the adverse action against  his  practicing  privileges,
his record of practice, supportive  statements,  and  other  documents
associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant separated from active  duty  on  30 Jul 07  in  the
grade of major.   His  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 1 Aug 02.

While he was assigned as a pediatrician at the 48 MDG, RAF Lakenheath,
England, the 48 MDG/CC restricted his privileges following an  adverse
action process, based upon allegations that he was  unable  to  safely
care for critically ill patients independently.   The  adverse  action
against the clinical privileges of the applicant  arose  following  an
incident of care involving the resuscitation of  a  24-week  premature
infant.  Following the incident, allegations surfaced that the care he
provided for the infant was either below the standard expected or  was
performed in a manner that jeopardized patient care.   On  28 Jun  06,
the Chief of the Medical Staff and Chairperson, Credentials  Function,
placed the applicant’s clinical privileges in  abeyance  and  notified
him by letter that the  basis  for  the  abeyance  was  predicated  on
performance evaluations, reviews, and testimonies regarding  his  fund
of knowledge and ability to safely care for critically  ill  pediatric
patients independently.  The  abeyance  notice  further  notified  the
applicant that his privileges to  care  for  pediatric  patients  were
restricted during the period of abeyance, requiring direct supervision
for critical care and indirect supervision for all other care.  During
the period of abeyance, the 48  MDG  supervised  his  practice  and  a
report was written on 27 Oct 06 regarding that supervision.   On  that
same day, the  MDG/CC  appointed  an  Investigating  Officer  (IO)  to
conduct an investigation into the concerns raised.  The  IO  conducted
various interviews of members of the health care staff with  knowledge
of the incident of care involving the 24-week premature  infant.   The
IO, a staff pediatrician, conducted a professional peer review of care
the applicant provided to at least three other critically ill  infants
that raised concerns about the quality of the care he  provided.   The
IO did not  interview  the  applicant,  nor  did  he  interview  other
potential witnesses to the four incidents of care  identified  in  the
investigation.

On 12 Jul 06, the IO forwarded his report to the Credentials  Function
for their review.  The Credentials Function met on 14 Jul 06 to review
the report, the quality of  care  review  for  the  incident  of  care
involving  the  24-week  premature  infant  dated  21  Jun   06,   the
applicant’s response to that review dated 11 Jul 06, and a standard of
care review regarding the incident of care for one of the other  three
infants.    The   Credentials   Function   also   heard   from   three
pediatricians and reviewed other paperwork from the incidents of  care
for the other infants.


Following their  review,  on  14  Jul  06,  the  Credentials  Function
forwarded to the 48  MDG/SGH  their  recommendation  that  the  MDG/CC
restrict  the  applicant’s  clinical  privileges  as  he   failed   to
independently meet the  standard  of  care  for  four  critically  ill
pediatric patients.  The Credentials Function determined he had failed
to  apply  basic   concepts   in   ventilator   management,   neonatal
resuscitation and  shock  management,  he  did  not  work  well  under
pressure, failed to communicate well with team  members  or  act  upon
their advice, and that he lacked knowledge in managing critical cases.


On 19 Jul 06, upon review of the Credential Function  recommendations,
the MDG/CC notified the  applicant  of  the  intent  to  restrict  his
privileges, and informed him of his right to a hearing on the  matter.
On 20 Jul 06, the MDG/CC provided him with the  specific  reasons  for
the intended restriction of privileges by way of an addendum.  Also on
20 Jul 06, the 48 MDG/SGH notified the  applicant  that  his  clinical
privileges were summarily suspended, providing the detailed basis  for
the suspension.  In accordance with the  regulations,  the  period  of
abeyance, initiated on 28 Jun 06, could not extend beyond thirty  (30)
days, which, if the concerns were not resolved by the end of that time
period, became a summary suspension.  The applicant’s privileges  were
summarily suspended by the notice of 20 Jul 06.  An  initial  DD  Form
2499 was also completed on 20 Jul 06.


On 1 Sep 06, the applicant requested a hearing  which  was  scheduled,
but, on 19 Oct 06, waived his right to  a  hearing  and  appealed  the
pending adverse action directly to the AFMOA.

On 3 Nov 06, the 48 MDG/CC notified the applicant that his  privileges
were restricted and  advised  him  of  his  right  to  appeal  to  the
AFMOA/SGOC through the HQ USAFE/SGOC.  A  revised  DD  Form  2499  was
completed indicating the restriction of his privileges.

On 31 Oct 06, the applicant availed himself of the next level  of  the
adverse action  process  by  appealing  directly  to  AFMOA/SGOC  (now
AFMOA/SG3OQ).  In that appeal, he raised his objections to the  action
of the MDG/CC to restrict his privileges, and  presented  evidence  in
the form of an additional and contrary  quality  of  care  review  and
thirty (30) letters from witnesses that were never interviewed as part
of the inquiry or considered by the  Credentials  Function,  and  thus
could not have been in the contemplation of the MDG/CC prior to making
a final determination.

Upon receiving the applicant’s appeals package, AFMOA subjected it  to
a thorough review to determine compliance with procedures and ensure a
sustentative basis for the actions taken.  AFMOA generated  a  summary
of the case.  As part of that process, AFMOA obtained another clinical
review of the care delivered by the applicant in the four incidents of
care, as well as a legal review.  The clinical reviewer  was  able  to
review the entire record, including that which was  available  to  the
Credentials Function and MDG/CC as well as the additional  information
provided by the applicant.   The  AFMOA  clinical  reviewer  concluded
that, in three of the incidents of care, he had met  the  standard  of
care.  In the fourth incident, that of the  24-week  premature  infant
that was  the  catalyst  for  initiating  the  process,  the  clinical
reviewer found the clinical situation would have been  challenging  in
any setting, discussed the various standards of care and  complexities
associated with care of this infant, and concluded  that  whether  the
standard of care had been met by the applicant in this  situation  was
indeterminate, noting that two other pediatricians participated in the
care, as well as an entire team of health care professionals.

On 25 Jan 07, AFMOA then presented the matter of  the  restriction  of
the applicant’s privileges to the Air Force  Medical  Practice  Review
Board (MPRB) for consideration.  The MPRB found that  the  Credentials
Function  based  its  recommendation  to  the  MDG/CC  on   incomplete
information in that  information  from  pertinent  witnesses  was  not
presented.  Additionally, the MPRB noted that the  determination  that
the standard of care was not met was based solely upon the decision of
a  partner  of  the  applicant,  when  the  review  done  by  a  "very
experienced pediatrician still  actively  practicing  all  aspects  of
pediatric care determined the standard of care was met in three of the
cases,  and  indeterminate  in  the  last  case  that  involved  three
pediatricians.”   The  MPRB  found  that  the   restriction   of   the
applicant’s privileges was not warranted given the evidence  presented
did not  demonstrate  a  lack  of  competency  sufficient  to  warrant
restriction and that the action taken by the  MDG/CC  was  based  upon
incomplete information.  The MPRB did not concur with the decision  of
the MDG/CC and recommended AFMOA/CC overturn the  MDG/CC  decision  to
restrict.  Since a suspension could be reportable, depending upon  the
final outcome of the adverse action process, the MPRB recommended that
the AF/SG not report the matter to the relevant  regulatory  oversight
agency for pediatricians.

The AFMOA/CC agreed with the recommendations of  the  MPRB,  supported
the full reinstatement of privileges with a recommendation only  of  a
90-day day period of monitoring and evaluation and no  report  to  the
National Practitioner's Data Bank.  The USAF/SG agreed that no  report
should be made to the National Practitioner's Data Bank.

On 8 Mar 07, AFMOA/SGO3Q notified both the 48 MDG/CC and the applicant
of its decision to overturn the 48 MDG/CC's decision to  restrict  the
applicant’s privileges.  AFMOA updated the DD Form 2499 in the remarks
section, indicating they  did  not  concur  with  the  restriction  of
applicant’s privileges.

On 9 Mar 07, when the 48 MDG received the decision of AFMOA, they sent
the applicant notice that his privileges were reinstated,  and  placed
him on only 30 days of  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  his  clinical
practice.  Additionally,  they  again  altered  his  AF Form  2817  to
reflect his return to  unsupervised  privileges.   This  document  now
reflects  the  original  request  for  clinical  privileges  from  the
applicant, the downgrade in privileges when the 48  MDG/CC  restricted
his privileges on 3 Nov 06, as well  as  the  return  to  unrestricted
privileges.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFMOA/SGO3Q recommends denial of the appeal in so far as it  seeks  to
expunge all documentary evidence concerning the adverse action against
the applicant’s clinical privileges.  However, they do not  object  to
certain requests, and recommend partial  approval  of  his  appeal  as
stated at the end of their advisory opinion.

AFMOA/SGO3Q indicates that after analyzing the facts of record as well
as the applicant’s contentions, they note that his  interpretation  of
the facts of this case contain  a  number  of  misinterpretations  and
conflicting assertions.  He has failed to meet his burden  of  proving
by sufficient material evidence that AF/SG has committed an  error  or
injustice by engaging in the adverse action process that  led  to  the
abeyance, suspension, restriction, and ultimate reinstatement  of  his
clinical privileges following the allegations of substandard care that
could have risked the safety of Air Force patients.  Under  Air  Force
policy, a pediatrician is a privileged health professional  requiring,
at  a  minimum,  a  degree  and  a  license  from  any  United  States
jurisdiction.  Pediatricians are  licensed  independent  practitioners
requiring no supervision from a physician.   In  the  Air  Force  each
provider with the individual authority and  responsibility  to  begin,
alter, or end a plan of treatment for a patient, must  be  privileged.
The credentialing and privileging process is a core  function  of  the
Air Force clinical quality program.  The process is designed to ensure
the  safety  and  quality  of  Air  Force  health-care   delivery   by
continually monitoring and  assessing  the  performance  of  providers
using  the  results  of  quality  improvement  and   risk   management
activities.  Prior to caring for his first patient, the applicant  had
to  undergo  this  rigorous  and  thorough  process  to   ensure   his
credentials were in order and that  he  met  the  criteria  for  being
granted privileges to care for patients.  Those criteria included  the
individual's    education,    professional    license,    professional
certifications, experience, competence, ability, health, and judgment.

Further,  he  has  submitted  no  additional  evidence  regarding  the
underlying decision of the Air Force  that  his  clinical  performance
warranted a full review utilizing the adverse action  process,  beyond
that which was available to the MPRB  on  his  appeal  to  AF/SG.   He
primarily argues that the same decision should have been made  earlier
in his case, but, when faced  with  the  opportunity  to  present  his
evidence, he chose to waive his right to a  hearing.   The  Air  Force
finding that the applicant’s clinical performance in  caring  for  the
premature infant warranted the review in order to protect his patients
was reasonable.  The finding supports the  Air  Force  adverse  action
initiation  and  maintenance   as   appropriate   action   under   the
circumstances.

AFMOA/SGO3Q notes the applicant’s complaint that  he  is  required  to
report the existence of the adverse action to  other  entities.   They
state the reporting process regarding privileging actions  by  medical
facilities is similar to credit reports supplied by lenders.  In  each
situation, the effect of the report on  a  subject's  ability  to  get
credit (or privileges) is up to the creditor (medical facility).   The
creditor (medical facility) is now placed on notice  the  subject  has
had problems in the past of a type that may be relevant in the current
granting of credit (privileges).  The creditor (medical facility)  may
now weigh the  facts  and  assess  the  risk  before  granting  credit
(privileges).  The conditions of credit (privileges) may  be  adjusted
for the risk.  A creditor may increase the percentage rate or  require
direct withdrawals as a condition of the grant of credit.   A  medical
facility may require supervision, monitoring and evaluation, or  other
conditions to mitigate the risks to patient  care.   The  Air  Force’s
restriction of the applicant’s privileges was  ultimately  overturned.
The fact of the overturning is reported as well as  the  fact  of  the
restriction.  Any report of the existence of the adverse  action  will
be balanced by the fact of its overturning.   Further,  the  applicant
has already disclosed the fact of the adverse action to at  least  two
other entities.  Both of their records now contain the  fact  that  an
adverse action was taken against the applicant’s' privileges while  at
the 48 MDG.  These disclosures cannot be retracted.  The  full  record
of the proceedings available in the PCF or the  AFMOA  Adverse  Action
File will be available for  eight  (8)  years,  should  any  questions
arise.

In AFMOA/SGO3Q’s view, that which the applicant’s seeks is not the Air
Force's to give.  The actions taken were appropriate,  reasonable  and
required by law.  They have not punished him or unfairly labeled  him.
Rather, they have acted to fulfill their obligation to their patients,
the system and the applicant.   There  is  evidence  that  the  system
worked as it should.  Following the 48 MDG/CC action, the  applicant’s
appeal was processed and carefully reviewed at AFMOA/SG3OQ, ultimately
resulting in the reinstatement of his privileges.

AFMOA/SGO3Q notes the applicant’s request that the Air Force provide a
letter directing he is no longer  required  to  disclose  the  adverse
action.  However, the  Air  Force  has  no  authority  to  permit  the
applicant not  to  disclose  that  which  federal  or  state  law,  or
contractual obligations would otherwise require him to disclose.

Regarding his request for an opportunity to review the “Legal  Review”
provided to them, AFMOA/SGO3Q indicates the claims  the  legal  review
associated with the adverse action is subject to  attorney-client  and
attorney work-product privileges, which it does not waive  and  should
not be released to the applicant.

AFMOA/SGO3Q also notes the applicant’s  request  that  his  appeal  be
processed as a reprisal case under 10 USC 1034.  They state that while
he alleges reprisal as the basis of the adverse action against him, he
actually stated the reason Dr. F--- engaged in a flawed  investigation
and Drs. B--- and B--- gave false testimonies was to avoid scrutiny of
themselves.  The Whistleblowers Protection Act is designed to  protect
communications made or prepared by the subject prior to the  reprisal.
The applicant fails to identify any communication he made or  prepared
that cause the subsequent conduct of the doctors.

Concerning his request that the Air Force investigate and report  Drs.
B--- and B--- for providing false testimonies,  AFMOA/SGO3Q  indicates
they reviewed the allegations of false  testimonies  and  believe  the
testimonies offered  reflected  differences  of  opinion  rather  than
falsity.

AFMOA/SGO3Q further notes the  applicant’s  requests  that  the  Board
decision be kept private and he be compensated  for  his  legal  fees.
According to AFMOA/SGO3Q, they will rely on  the  Board  to  determine
what, if any, information should be made public but note the governing
instruction indicates that after deletion of personal information, the
Board decisions would be made available for review and  copying  at  a
public  reading  room.   The  future  legal  expenses  sought  by  the
applicant  would  not  be  a  claim  for  loss  of  pay,   allowances,
compensation, emolument, or  other  pecuniary  benefits,  or  for  the
repayment of a  fine  or  forfeiture  as  required  by  the  governing
statute.  These future legal expenses are purely  speculative  on  the
applicant’s part, as they have not been incurred.  Further, the  Board
is not authorized to pay expenses of any kind incurred by or on behalf
of an applicant in connection with a correction of military records.

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGO3Q evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  lengthy,
detailed response.  In summary, he believes the merits of the advisory
opinion are limited by a  conflict  of  interest.   The  USAF  Medical
Service is hoping to protect its own credibility and its  own  assets,
as well as its own investigation mechanism.  He  indicates  the  truth
has eluded the entire investigation.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments  are  attached  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA  notes  the  applicant’s  numerous  requests  for  relief.
However, it appears that he is motivated by two primary desires:   (1)
to be free from any history of and reporting  requirements  associated
with  the  summary  suspension  and  overturned  restriction  of   his
privileges  and  (2)  to  ensure  disciplinary  action  against  those
perceived as responsible for their  imposition.   In  pursuit  of  the
first desire, he  seeks  expungement  (destruction)  of  any  and  all
documentation related to or referencing  the  summary  suspension  and
restriction of privileges.   His  multiple  requests  in  this  regard
relate to documents in his PAF, PCF, and  record  depositories  at  48
MDG, USAFE, AFMOA.  Additionally, he proposes to add to these  various
files much of the favorable documentation he acquired in the course of
assembling his appeal.  In a  few  instances,  he  proposes  to  alter
documents to eliminate negative references associated with the summary
suspension and restriction of his privileges.  As  an  alternative  to
document     destruction,     amendment,     reaccomplishment,     and
supplementation, he proposes that the Air Force  issue  him  a  letter
stating that he is no longer required by the Air Force to report  this
matter in the future  when  applying  for  a  state  medical  license,
hospital privileges, or malpractice  insurance.   In  pursuit  of  the
second desire, the applicant requests that his case file be  processed
as one of reprisal pursuant to the Military Whistleblowers  Protection
Act (MWPA) (10 USC 1034).  Additionally, he recommends the  Air  Force
report allegedly false testimony by Major AB  and  Major KB  to  their
respective state licensing agencies  and  current  military  treatment
facility command staffs.  In a series of  miscellaneous  requests,  he
seeks access to the legal review provided to AFMOA on  his  successful
credentialing appeal; $12,000.00 in anticipated legal fees to  procure
advice on disclosure requirement relating to  the  summary  suspension
and overturned privilege restriction; and  redaction  of  the  maximum
amount of personal and patient information from the public  record  of
the Board’s decision, or,  in  the  alternative,  withholding  of  the
Board’s decision from public access.

According to HQ USAF/JAA, they found no statutory requirement that the
records in question be maintained for any fixed period of time  or  be
accorded immunity from destruction, amendment, or supplementation.  In
their view, the relief that should be granted is  expungement  of  the
PAF; the Jul 07 AF Forms 1562 of Lt Col KF and Major KB; and  the  Jul
07 AF Form 22 completed by Major KB.  A copy of his appeal  should  be
added to the PCF adverse actions file maintained at the 48 MDG Quality
Assurance  Office.   To  protect  privacy  interests,  the  Board  may
appropriately redact personal identifiers from its  decision  of  this
case.  According to HQ USAF/JAA, the Board  is  without  authority  to
grant issuance of a letter advising the applicant that he  is  without
obligation to disclose to third parties  the  summary  suspension  and
restriction of privileges;  making  reports  to  the  state  licensing
agencies of Majors AB and KB; release of AFMOA’s legal review; payment
of $12, 000.00 in compensatory damages/attorney fees; and not publicly
posting decision of the case.  According to HQ USAF/JAA, the applicant
has not met the burden of any “communication” to which the MWPA  would
apply.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  lengthy,
detailed response.  In summary, he indicates the  HQ  USAF/JAA  argues
against the Board relief he has sought by  criticizing  in  advance  a
decision by the Board to “rewrite history wholesale.” He contends that
it is the members of the chain of command who have already  “rewritten
history wholesale” with flagrantly dishonest testimony  from  his  two
supervisors, by  failure  to  arrange  appropriate  due  process,  and
insisting that he disclose this matter everywhere for the rest of  his
career.  The advisory opinion has rewritten history  by  claiming  the
unwarranted and inappropriate privileging action was actually based on
his answers to an AF Form 1540, a  document  never  mentioned  by  the
commander, never mentioned in the documents of the privileging action,
and never seen by him until recently.  The Board has  the  opportunity
to validate the history that was inappropriately rewritten by  members
of the chain of command and by the advisory opinion.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments  are  attached  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 concerning the AF Forms 1562 completed
by Major KB and Lt Col KF; the AF Form 22 completed by Major  KB;  the
applicant’s PAF; and his appeal to AFMOA.  After an exhaustive  review
of this application, we are  sufficiently  persuaded  that  corrective
action is warranted in this case.  Thus, we agree with the AFMOA/SGO3Q
and HQ USAF/JAA recommendations that the AF Forms 1562,  AF  Form  22,
and the PAF be voided and removed from the applicant’s  records;  and,
that the his appeal should be included in the  PCF.   Accordingly,  we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as set forth below.  In
our view, the recommended corrective action is the proper and  fitting
relief in this case.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests
that the Air Force provide a letter directing that  he  is  no  longer
required to disclose the adverse  action  taken  against  him;  he  be
afforded an opportunity to review the legal review provided by  AFMOA;
his application  be  processed  under  10  USC  1034;  the  Air  Force
investigate and report Drs. AB and KB for providing false  testimonies
against  him  during  the  adverse  privileging  action;  and  he   be
compensated for his legal costs.  The applicant’s complete  submission
was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However,
we do  not  find  his  assertions  and  his  supporting  documentation
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale proffered by the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore,  we  adopt
the OPRs’ rationale as the basis for our decision  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling
basis to act favorably on his requests.

5.  We note the Quality Review by Colonel B--- H---; a Cross-Reference
to the 48 MDG Adverse Action File; and 30 memoranda have been included
in the applicant’s PCF.  Accordingly, no further action  is  necessary
by this Board concerning these issues.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  His Provider  Activity  File  (PAF)  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

      b.  The AF Forms 1562, Credentials –  Evaluation  of  Healthcare
Practitioners, dated 4 Jul 07 and 9 Jul 07, completed by Major K--- B--
- and Lieutenant Colonel K--- F---, be declared void and removed  from
his records.

      c.  The AF Form  22,  Clinical  Privileges  Evaluation  Summary,
dated 4 Jul 07, completed by Major K--- B---,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

      d.  The Memorandum of Record, dated 31 Oct 06,  be  included  in
the Provider Credentials File (PCF) maintained  at  the  48th  Medical
Group (48 MDG) Quality Assurance Office.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-02312 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 08 and 16 Oct 08,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGO3Q, dated 8 Nov 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Dec 07.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Dec 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 12 Aug 08.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Aug 08.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 13 Sep 08.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair






AFBCMR BC-2007-02312




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  His Provider Activity File (PAF) be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The AF Forms 1562, Credentials – Evaluation of
Healthcare Practitioners, dated 4 July 2007 and 9 July 2007, completed
by Major K--- B--- and Lieutenant Colonel
K--- F---, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his
records.

            c.  The AF Form 22, Clinical Privileges Evaluation
Summary, dated 4 July 2007, completed by Major K--- B---, be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

            d.  The Memorandum of Record, dated 31 October 2006, be
included in the Provider Credentials File (PCF) maintained at the 48th
Medical Group (48 MDG) Quality Assurance Office.







    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency