IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005119 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests: 

* an adverse privileging report submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) be voided
* all "abeyance and adverse actions" against her privileges be voided and removed from her record

2.  She states an adverse privileging report was submitted to the NPDB on 23 March 2009 in accordance with Army Regulation 40-68 (Clinical Quality Management), paragraph 10-6a(4).  She states the application of this provision of regulation was unjustified because:

	a.  her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicated she was involuntarily discharged on 11 November 2007;
 
	b.  correspondence on 8 September 2010 indicated no DD Form 2499 (Health Care Practitioner Action Report) was completed on 11 November 2007 in accordance with Army Regulation 40-68, paragraph 10-6; and 

	c.  there is no evidence of final authorization by The Surgeon General (TSG) prior to reporting the adverse action to the NPDB in accordance with Army Regulation 40-68, paragraph 10-3c.

3.  She states destroying all documents associated with unfounded abeyances as indicated in a CQM QA investigation on 31 November 2007 is supported by Army Regulation 40-68.  

4.  She states the order separating her from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) only shows Army Regulation 135-175 as the authority with no paragraph indicated.  She requests verification that the authority for her separation from the USAR was Army Regulation 135-175, paragraph 6-10a.  If this is not the authority, she requests that it be changed or that she be informed of the procedures necessary to request a change.

5.  She provides documents identified in the Supporting Documentation Information section of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 15 September 2004, the applicant applied for appointment as a commissioned officer in the USAR.  Her application shows she requested appointment in the Medical Specialist Corps in area of concentration 65B (Physical Therapy), and that she had been employed as a physical therapist from June 1997 through the date of her application.  

2.  On 17 November 2004, she took the oath of office as a Reserve commissioned officer in the Army of the United States in the rank/grade of first lieutenant/O-2.  

3.  A DA Form 5074-1-R (Record of Award of Entry Grade Credit (Health Services Officers), dated 3 March 2005, shows she received a Master of Physical Therapy degree in May 1997 and she was licensed to practice in September 1997.  

4.  Effective 11 January 2007, she was promoted to captain/O-3.

5.  On 9 July 2007, the 332nd Medical Brigade, Nashville, TN, issued Orders 
07-190-00006 ordering her to active duty for a period of 353 days as a member of her Reserve unit.  The orders, as later amended, show she was to report to her unit on 23 July 2007 and report to Fort Knox, KY, on 26 July 2007.  Her record shows she reported as ordered.

6.  Her transaction history in Integrated Web Services (IWS), a human resources management database maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), includes e-mails between the applicant and Colonel (COL) H., the Individual Mobilization Augmentee Chief, Physical Therapy Section, Army Medical Specialist Corps, Army Medical Department (AMEDD).  The e-mails show:

	a.  On 13 September 2007, the applicant contacted COL H. with questions regarding her privileges.  She stated, in effect, she was uncomfortable with the expanded skill set expected in the practice of military physical therapy, and she would not have requested a direct commission had she been aware of the expanded skill set.

	b.  On 14 September 2007, COL H. responded.  He described the expanded skill set expected of Army physical therapists and stated he found her situation "intriguing and frustrating, since it seems as though you are actually wanting to limit your ability to practice to the expanded standard needed in the Army."  He noted that failure to train and practice to the expected Army physical therapy standard could adversely impact her performance ratings and would negatively impact the ability of the Army to use her in some duty positions without having to provide supervision.  He stated if her concerns were a matter of needing further training, experience, or supervision, he was confident that could be arranged.

	c.  On 15 September 2007, she responded.  She stated, in part, "I am feeling way out of my league starting to practice at [category] I with close to a full load at [Fort] Knox already."  She stated she felt limited in her ability to practice in outpatient/sports medicine and realized she "should have requested supervisory for [category] I versus fully competent to perform."  

7.  On 20 September 2007, a career management officer (CMO) made an entry in the applicant's IWS transaction history showing she had contacted the CMO on the suggestion of COL H.  The CMO noted the applicant was "mobilized and having difficulties with position she is in and her experience."  The CMO noted the applicant had been told to contact her regarding an "admin core" placement.  The CMO informed the applicant "the only area in AMEDD that would fall under 'admin' is [Medical Service Corps] and that she would have to reapply for appointment to that branch."

8.  Her record does not include the complete facts and circumstances leading to her release from active duty.  

9.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 11 November 2007 after completing 3 months and 19 days of net active service this period.  The form shows in:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) – "AR 600-8-24, para 2-25A"
* item 26 (Separation Code) – "LBK"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "Completion of required active service"  

10.  On 20 August 2009, AHRC issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) amending item 25 of her DD Form 214 to read "AR 600-8-24, para 2-7" and item 26 to read "MBK."

11.  In her Officer Evaluation Report for the period ending 3 October 2008, her rater stated that, during the rating period, she "had to deal with some very personal and professional issue[s] concerning her continuing practice of physical therapy, and as such, has decided not to continue in this profession."  Her rater stated she had decided to resign her commission.  

12.  Her IWS transaction history shows, on 14 October 2009, AHRC received her request for unqualified resignation through the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC).  She stated she was no longer a practicing physical therapist and did not anticipate returning to the field.  She was approved for resignation.  

13.  On 23 October 2009, Headquarters, USARC, issued Orders 09-296-00002.  The orders honorably discharged her from the USAR under the authority of Army Regulation 135-175 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Separation of Officers).  

14.  Her record includes a copy of a Renewal Certificate for her license to practice physical therapy in the State of Texas.  The Renewal Certificate is stamped "inactive."  It shows her license was valid until 30 April 2010.  

15.  She provides numerous documents in support of her application:

	a.  A Credentials Transfer Brief (Reserve/Guard), dated 6 August 2007, prepared for the Commander, Ireland Army Community Hospital (IRACH), Fort Knox, KY, verified her education and licenses, verified there was no adverse information available in the NPDB, and verified she was known to be clinically competent to practice the full scope of privileges granted at IRACH.

	b.  A DA Form 5440-21 (Delineation of Clinical Privileges - Physical Therapy), she signed on 1 August 2007 shows she requested to be approved as fully competent for Category I privileges at IRACH.  For Category II, she requested several privileges with required supervision and indicated she did not want to be approved for two privileges (electroneuromyographic testing and early intervention for high-risk infants) due to insufficient expertise.  The form shows her supervisor and the Deputy Commander for Clinical Services (DCCS) recommended approval of her request.  
	c.  A DA Form 5440A (Approval of Clinical Privileges/Staff Appointment) shows, on 8 August 2007, the Commander, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (USA MEDDAC), Fort Knox, KY, approved her request for privileges "under enhanced supervision." 

	d.  Medical records show:

		(1)  On 26 September 2007, she had a follow-up appointment with a physician for an increase of pain in her back and neck.  The physician diagnosed a backache and prescribed Tylenol.  

		(2)  On 2 October 2007, she was seen at the IRACH Psychology Clinic with a chief complaint of difficulty adjusting to mobilizing and working in a military environment.  The examining psychologist diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood and released her from the appointment without limitations and with follow up as needed.  

		(3)  On 10 October 2007, the DCCS brought her to the IRACH Psychology Clinic "due to increased crying and her inability to work in a different area in the hospital."  She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and released without limitations.  The records show she was seen again for the same diagnosis on 15 October 2007 and released without limitations.

	e.  In a letter, dated 3 October 2007, she sent to the DCCS, IRACH, she stated, "Due to my current medical status and inability to adhere to the military physical therapy practices, I would like to have my military physical therapy privileges revoked."  

	f.  A memorandum, dated 18 October 2007, subject:  Notification of Abeyance of Clinical Privileges/Practice, dated 18 October 2007, from the Commander, USA MEDDAC, Fort Knox, KY, shows she was notified that, effective immediately, all of her clinical privileges/practice as a physical therapist at IRACH had been placed in abeyance.  On 25 October 2007, she acknowledged receipt of the memorandum.  

		(1)  The memorandum stated the reasons for the abeyance were her refusal to practice within her assigned privileges in physical therapy and her request to have her military physical therapy privileges revoked due to her medical status and inability to adhere to the military physical therapy practices.  

		(2)  She was informed the period of abeyance was 15 days and could not exceed 30 days.  Action related to her clinical privileges/practice and staff appointment, if warranted, was to be initiated by the Credentials Committee at its meeting on 1 November 2007.  

		(3)  She was informed an abeyance that was not closed within 30 days would automatically become a summary suspension of clinical privileges and that a summary suspension would be in effect while due process proceedings were underway.  She was further informed a summary suspension in the Department of Defense was not reportable.  

		(4)  She was also informed if she were to elect to terminate her military service prior to resolution of these matters, her abeyance would become a suspension of privileges/practice, which would be considered a final action and would be reported to the NPDB and/or other State or regulatory agencies.

	g.  A memorandum, dated 2 November 2007, subject: Notification of Abeyance of Clinical Privileges/Practice Additional 15 Days, from the Commander, USA MEDDAC, Fort Knox, KY, shows she was notified her clinical privileges/practice had been placed in abeyance for an additional 15 days.  On 20 November 2007, she acknowledged receipt of the memorandum.  

	h.  A memorandum, dated 13 November 2007, subject:  Investigation Pertaining to [the Applicant's] Privileges as a Physical Therapist, for the Commander, USA MEDDAC, Fort Knox, KY, shows an officer performed an "informal Quality Assurance" concerning the applicant's privileges.  

		(1)  The investigating officer found:

* the applicant did not use techniques allowed in military physical therapy in her civilian practice and became uncomfortable with practicing basic privileges while at Fort Knox
* she was never pressured to perform services above her comfort level, and she was provided training opportunities to advance her skills
* she elected to request withdrawal of her privileges knowing she could continue to practice in some capacity and could have developed advanced skills with supervision and mentorship
* no evidence of substandard care, though she only provided limited care for 8 days
* she did not want to practice physical therapy in any capacity and intended to let her State licenses expire
* the decision to leave physical therapy was the main reason for withdrawing her credentials

		(2)  The investigating officer recommended the Credentials Committee summarily suspend privileges based on her withdrawal of privileges.  He stated she had thought out the decision and believed withdrawal would be in her best interest.  

	i.  A DD Form 2499, dated 4 December 2007, submitted to Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command (USAMEDCOM), Fort Sam Houston, TX, shows her clinical privileges were in abeyance followed by summary suspension pending due process.  

	j.  A DD Form 2499, dated 4 June 2008, submitted to USAMEDCOM shows the signature of the Commander, USA MEDDAC, Fort Knox, KY, in item 17 (Remarks).  Item 17 also contains the following statement:

	"On 3 Oct 07 [the applicant] submitted a statement to the DCCS to voluntarily have her privileges withdrawn due to her current medical status and inability to adhere to the military physical therapy practices.  A [clinical quality management (CQM) quality assurance (QA)] investigation did not find evidence of substandard care provided by [the applicant].  A fitness for duty exam was not done.  A Peer Panel review is not warranted.  [The applicant] is an [Active Guard/Reserve] Soldier REFRAD."

	k.  An Adverse Action Report filed with the NPDB by USAMEDCOM on 23 March 2009 shows in Section C (Information Reported) the report was filed based on action taken on 18 October 2007 to indefinitely suspend the applicant's clinical privileges.  The report states an extended abeyance became a reportable suspension when the applicant separated from active duty while her privileges were suspended.

	l.  A memorandum, dated 10 June 2009, subject:  Involuntary Officer Separation – [Applicant], for the Commander, Army Reserve Medical Command (AR MEDCOM) shows a Deputy SJA found the packet requesting initiation of involuntary separation action against the applicant for moral or professional dereliction to be legally sufficient.  The Deputy SJA stated her unwillingness to practice military physical therapist duties was grounds for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, paragraphs 2-12i(1) and 2-12o.  

	m.  A memorandum, dated 23 June 2009, subject:  Notification of Involuntary Separation Hearing Scheduled for 24-27 September 2009, from the Commander, AR MEDCOM, shows she was notified she was required to show cause for retention in military service to an administrative separation board.  She was notified she could:
* resign in lieu of involuntary separation
* request transfer to the Retired Reserve, if eligible
* request her case be acted upon by a board of officers

	n.  E-mail correspondence between her and AR MEDCOM, dated 28, 30, and 31 July 2009, shows her first show cause notice was voided and new board dates were to be established. 

	o.  A letter, dated 5 October 2009, sent to the Chief, Quality Management Division (QMD), USAMEDCOM, shows she contested the report to the NPDB.  She stated, in part:

	"I resorted to withdrawing my privileges after experiencing repetitive administrative mishandling for an extended period of time.  The administrative mishandling [led] to severe stress and medical/psychological ailments and place me, the provider, into an ethical dilemma.  I believed I wasn't able to provide compassionate care as required by the American Physical Therapy Code of Ethics, and as a result, I was unable to adhere to military physical therapy practices."

She continued, summarizing the events leading to submission of a report to the NPDB and alleging there were several irregularities and failure to follow regulatory procedures.

	p.  In a letter, dated 21 May 2010, to TSG she formally requested reconsideration of the actions taken against her clinical privileges.

	q.  In an e-mail, dated 18 August 2010, a staff member of the G-1, USARC, informed her the paragraph [of Army Regulation 135-175] pertaining to her separation was paragraph 6-10(a)1.

	r.  A letter, dated 18 August 2010, to the Chief, QMD, USAMEDCOM, shows she requested three documents:  

* a DD Form 2499, dated 11 November 2007, indicating a final determination on the suspension of her privileges completed on the date of her REFRAD
* notification of suspension of privileges (final adverse action)
* a DD Form 2499 with TSG authorization to report an adverse action to the NPDB

She also requested a response to correspondence she sent in July and October 2009.  

	s.  A letter, dated 23 August 2010, shows the Director, Division of Practitioner Data Banks, informed her the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had reviewed the Adverse Action Report submitted to the NPDB by the U.S. Army Medical Command on 23 March 2009.  The Secretary found no basis on which to conclude the report should not have been filed in the NPDB or that it was not accurate.  Her request that the report be voided from the NPDB was denied.  

	t.  A letter, dated 31 August 2010, to USAMEDCOM shows she requested deletion of multiple documents from her provider credential file (PCF), including:

* documents completed by IRACH pertaining to her clinical privileges and medical staff appointment
* documents associated with abeyance and summary suspension of privileges pending due process
* the adverse action report filed with the NPDB and all associated documents

She also requested extensive amendment of the organization and contents of her PCF, insertion of documents, and deletion of duplicate documents.

	u.  In a letter dated 8 September 2010, the Chief, QMD, USAMEDCOM, responded to the request for documents she submitted on 18 August 2010.  The Chief, QMD, informed her:

* a DD Form 2499 dated 11 November 2007 did not exist
* the notification of abeyance dated 2 November 2007 was her notification of suspension of privileges and she already had a copy of the notification
* a DD Form 2499 with TSG authorization to report an adverse action to the NPDB did not exist because the form is a routing document that is never signed by TSG

	v.  In a letter to the Division of Practitioner Data Banks, dated 13 September 2010, she requested reconsideration of the decision dated 23 August 2010.  She stated she had received her provider credential file and found information submitted by the reporting entity was inaccurate.

	w.  In a letter dated 24 September 2010, the Commander, USA MEDDAC, Fort Knox, KY, informed her a legal review of her appeal request and the substantiating documents she provided had been conducted.  He informed her her appeal was denied and the decision would be relayed to the Office of TSG.  

	x.  In a letter dated 23 November 2010, the Chief, QMD, USAMEDCOM, informed her her request to remove documents [from her PCF] and the NPDB report and to reverse the adverse privileging action taken against her were the subject of a Department of the Army Inspector General (IG) investigation.  She was informed she would receive a response from the IG when the investigation was complete.

	y.  In a letter dated 22 November 2010, the Chief, Assistance Division, Office of the IG, informed her Member of Congress of the results of an inquiry concerning improper medical credentialing and privileging by IRACH and other matters.  

		(1)  The official stated a thorough inquiry established the following issues were unfounded:

* review and primary source verification of the applicant's credentials were not conducted prior to granting clinical privileges in violation of Army Regulation 40-68
* Category II privileges were granted to the applicant who lacked the appropriate credentials in violation of Army Regulation 40-68
* the gaining command failed to review and correct errors in the attachments to the applicant's Inter-Facility Credentials Transfer Brief in violation of Army Regulation 40-68
* the applicant's USAR Inter-Facility Transfer Brief was not received at an active Army unit in a timely manner in violation of Army Regulation 40-68
* the applicant's protected health information was disclosed in violation of Department of Defense policy
* the applicant was improperly denied referral to the Impaired Health Care Personnel Ad Hoc Committee in violation of Army Regulation 40-68

		(2)  The official stated the issue that a supervisory plan was not completed for the applicant in violation of Army Regulation 40-68 was founded.

		(3)  The official noted the applicant had requested assistance with procedures to nullify and/or appeal abeyance and suspension of an Adverse Action Report and informed the Member of Congress she could appeal through the NPDB to HHS.

		(4)  The official noted the applicant's assertion that her duties as a military physical therapist were above and beyond a civilian's scope of practice.  The official stated that, based on her education and training, she was not outside the scope of providing Category II care.

		(5)  The official noted the applicant's assertion that time limits were not met in the review of the abeyance and suspension of her privileges to the NPDB.  The official stated that, in accordance with Army Regulation 40-68, no rights will accrue to the benefit of an affected provider, in an otherwise proper action, based on an organization's failure to meet time limits.

		(6)  The official noted the applicant's contention she did not receive timely notification of the privileges she was granted as well as her right to appeal her commander's decision.  The official stated the applicant lacked credibility due to the fact she requested revocation of her privileges on 3 October 2007.  Consequently, she was not afforded any additional rights regardless of the actual date of notification.  Once notified, she chose not to exercise her right to appeal.

		(7)  The official noted her DD Form 214 had been amended by a DD Form 215 issued on 20 August 2009 to reflect the correct separation code of "MBK" denoting "voluntary expiration of term of service."  

	z.  In a letter dated 18 January 2011, an official in the Office of the IG responded to another request she had submitted on 15 December 2010.  The official informed her issues regarding her involuntary discharge, competency assessment forms, military training, medical privileging and notification of adverse action had been appropriately addressed by letters to her members of Congress dated 22 November 2010.  She was informed that if she desired to pursue the matters further she could petition this Board 

16.  Army Regulation 40-68, paragraph 10-6 states when a provider’s conduct, condition, or performance requires action to protect the health or safety of patients, his/her clinical privileges/practice will be placed in abeyance or suspended while a thorough and impartial investigation is conducted.  The fact-finding period allows time to gather and carefully evaluate additional information regarding the situation prior to initiation of an adverse privileging/practice action, if deemed appropriate.

17.  Army Regulation 40-68 defines abeyance as follows.

	a.  An abeyance is not an adverse privileging/practice action.  However, the individual is formally placed “on notice” that scrutiny of his/her practice has begun which may result in an adverse privileging action or other administrative action.  The commander, DCCS, or department chief may take this action against a provider/professional.

	b.  An abeyance action is taken by the appropriate authority when an evaluation of performance appears warranted, but information is insufficient to suspend privileges/practice or the potential hazard to patients or patient care is not well defined.  In any case, prudence dictates that the individual not be permitted to render patient care.  During the period of abeyance the provider is assigned to nonclinical duties until the investigation is complete.  A DD Form 2499 will be initiated and forwarded (for informational purposes only) to the USAMEDCOM QMD, with copy furnished to the regional medical command or other higher headquarters, as appropriate.

	c.  An abeyance is valid for 15 calendar days and may be extended by the commander, if required, provided the total period of abeyance does not exceed 30 calendar days.  On the 31st day, if the abeyance is not closed, the action automatically becomes a summary suspension of clinical privileges/practice.  This is a temporary action.  Once the case is closed, all documentation associated with an unfounded abeyance action will be destroyed.

	d.  An abeyance that is not resolved when the individual terminates his/her relationship with the medical treatment facility (MTF) (that is, resigns his/her position or is released from active duty) automatically becomes a suspension of privileges.  This is considered a final action and the suspension of the provider’s privileges/practice will be reported as outlined in chapter 14.

18.  Army Regulation 40-68, chapter 14, states a variety of national agencies and clearinghouses exist to which the AMEDD must report information such as malpractice payments, licensure disciplinary actions, adverse clinical privileging actions, and unfavorable actions affecting professional society membership.  Adverse professional peer review actions taken against any healthcare personnel must be reported.  In addition, State regulatory agencies responsible for licensure, certification, or registration require notification of the following: substantiated unprofessional conduct or behavior, any actions taken to restrict or otherwise constrain the professional privileges/scope of practice of healthcare personnel, and malpractice settlements on behalf of healthcare personnel.

19.  TSG is the sole reporting authority to the NPDB, State regulatory authorities, the Federation of State Medical Boards, and/or other appropriate central clearinghouses.  TSG is responsible for reporting malpractice history information and adverse privileging actions, unprofessional conduct or behavior, and any legal charges for which the provider/professional is found guilty, pleads guilty, pleads nolo contendere, or requests discharge from the military in lieu of courts-martial.  TSG will not report to professional regulatory agencies, or to any other agencies, adverse privileging actions, malpractice payments, or any civilian court actions involving a USAR/Army National Guard provider’s behavior or conduct which occurs during other than his/her military duty.  MTF documentation in support of reports to the NPDB, State regulatory agencies, the Federation of State Medical Boards, or other bodies will be forwarded directly to Commander, USAMEDCOM, Fort Sam Houston, TX.

20.  Privileged providers/professionals will be reported to the NPDB or to a State regulatory agency within 30 calendar days of approval when the provider/professional voluntarily surrenders his/her clinical privileges or voluntarily requests a limitation of scope of practice while under investigation for issues of competence or conduct.

21.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the SPD codes to be entered in item 26 and the narrative reasons for separation to be entered in item 28 of DD Form 214.  

	a.  It states SPD code "LBK" applies to involuntary separations under the provisions of Army Regulation 600–8–24, paragraph 2–25a, for completion of required active service.

	b.  It states SPD code "MBK" applies to voluntary separations under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-7, for completion of required active service.

22.  Army Regulation 135-175 provides policy, criteria, and procedures for the separation of officers of the Army National Guard of the United States and the USAR.  Paragraph 6-10a states normally an obligated officer will not be permitted to resign her office until such time as the obligated period of service is completed, except as otherwise provided below.  Paragraph 6-10a(1) states Headquarters, Department of the Army, may approve acceptance of a resignation in cases involving extreme compassionate circumstances; or, when such action is deemed to be in the best overall interest of the officer and the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's requests that an adverse privileging report submitted to the NPDB be voided and that all "abeyance and adverse actions" against her privileges be voided and removed from her record.

2.  The record shows the applicant had been a licensed physical therapist for approximately 7 years when she applied for appointment as a commissioned officer in the USAR.  When she was ordered to active duty in 2007, she had been a licensed physical therapist for nearly 10 years, and she had been a USAR physical therapist for more than 2 years.  Notwithstanding her experience and her chain of command's efforts to support her in her practice of military physical therapy, she requested revocation of her military physical therapy privileges.  She stated her request was based on her "current medical status and inability to adhere to the military physical therapy practices."  

3.  As a result of her request, her privileges were properly placed in abeyance and she was informed that, if she elected to terminate her service prior to resolution of the matter, the abeyance would become a suspension of privileges reported to the NPDB.  

4.  Following an informal investigation, a summary suspension of privileges was imposed pending due process.  When she voluntarily left active duty and IRACH on 11 October 2007, due process was not complete.  The unresolved matter became a suspension of privileges reportable to the NPDB.  

5.  The governing regulation required filing an Adverse Action Report with the NPDB.  It appears the applicant was not fully aware of the implications of her decision to request a revocation of her privileges or the implications of leaving active duty prior to completion of the administrative processing triggered by her request.  Ignorance of the implications of her request is not a basis for removing a record filed in accordance with the applicable regulations. 

6.  The Office of the IG reviewed her medical credentialing and privileging by IRACH and found no issues with the duties she was expected to perform or actions by IRACH staff to place her privileges in abeyance following her request for revocation of her privileges.  The available records confirm the findings of the Office of the IG.  

7.  The applicant has failed to provide the compelling evidence that would warrant the relief she has requested.  

8.  Regarding her request for verification of the authority for her discharge from the USAR, the record shows she submitted a request for unqualified resignation through USARC, and her request was approved.  The authority for this type of discharge is Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 6-10a(1), as she was previously informed by a staff member of the G-1, USARC.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ____x___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   _x______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005119





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005119



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1