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. XXXXXXXXXX engaged in a flawed investigation and Drs. XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX 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. XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX 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 XXXXXXXXXX and Major XXXXXXXXXX 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 XXXXXXXXXX and Lt Col XXXXXXXXXX; the AF Form 22 completed by Major XX; 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. XX and XX 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 XXXXXXXXXX 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 XXXXXXXXXX and Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX be declared void and removed from his records.

	c.  The AF Form 22, Clinical Privileges Evaluation Summary, dated 4 Jul 07, completed by Major XXXXXXXXXX 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:

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.