MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            15 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029189

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that he be deemed a graduate of the Military Physician Assistant Program (MPAP), that he be issued the appropriate certificate with seal affixed, that he be commissioned as a Physician Assistant (PA) in the appropriate grade retroactive to the date he was originally scheduled to graduate (4 March 1994) with entitlement to any promotions and pay allowances that he would have received from that date.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly removed from Phase II of the MPAP based on falsehoods regarding his academic record and other issues made by the course director which has resulted in his being unjustly denied certification and commissioning as a military PA.  He goes on to state that he received his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree as a Physician Associate from the University of Oklahoma which in accordance with the applicable regulatory guidance makes him a graduate of the program; however, because the Academy of Health Sciences at Fort Sam Houston, Texas will not affix a seal of certification and signature to a certificate of completion, he is not allowed to take his licensure examination that is necessary to be offered a commission as a military PA.  He further states that contrary to the claims of the course director, his academic record will show that he met all of the academic requirements of the course and although the hospital commander (a general officer)  originally supported his relief from the course, he has subsequently reversed his decision on the matter.  He goes on to state that even though he believes that misrepresentations and personality conflicts existed between him and his preceptors; and for which he was partially responsible, it cannot excuse the blatant falsehoods that have been presented against him.  He also states that his exemplary record of service as well as his academic record cannot be disputed and show that he is ready to assume the role of a commissioned officer and PA.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his BS degree as a PA, a copy of a letter from the University of Oklahoma legal counsel, a copy of his academic evaluation report (AER) for completion of phase I, a copy of Department of the Army Circular   601-97-1, a copy of his Board of Inquiry results, a copy of an endorsement from the hospital commander recommending reinstatement to the MPAP, and a sworn statement from a PA.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 18 July 1984 for a period of 3 years and training as a medical specialist.  He has remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 August 1992.

The applicant attended the Interservice MPAP Phase I (Academic phase) at the Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 4 February 1992 and successfully completed the course standards on 29 January 1993.  He was then transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to undergo Phase II (clinical phase) of the MPAP on 15 February 1993.

On 21 January 1994 the Phase II course director recommended that the applicant be placed on academic probation for a period of 60 days.  The outcome of the request is not present in the available records; however, the applicant indicates that it was approved.

On 2 March 1994 a Board of Inquiry was convened at Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the MPAP Phase II.  It appears that the applicant had been accused of diliberately disobeying orders and failing to make presentations he was required to give in connection with the course.  The Board of Inquiry determined, in effect, that steps should be taken in the Phase II course to provided a more structured environment and that the applicant should be given a 2-month extension to allow for further evaluation. 

On 3 June 1994 the applicant was relieved from the course for cause for non-academic reasons.  He received an AER indicating that he failed to achieve course standards and the supporting comments indicate that his written and oral communication skills were inconsistent.  It also indicated that a demonstration of acceptable leadership was avoided by the applicant and that the professional expectations were not met.  In comparison with his peers, he fulfilled his assigned duties and obligations in a haphazard, negligent manner, and in other ways was consistent with a demonstrated lack of continuous determination and motivation.  He failed on two occasions to pass the end of phase examination, was relieved for cause for non-academic reasons, and was pending jurisprudence.  The applicant was transferred to Korea upon release from the MPAP.

On 13 May 1995 the University of Oklahoma awarded the applicant a BS Degree as a PA.   

On 25 October 1995 the applicant submitted a request for reinstatement in the MPAP.  Although the complete request is not present in the available records, the endorsement by the hospital commander ( a brigadier general) is present and indicates that he supported reinstatement, in effect, because of the investment in training that the Army had made in the applicant and because no significant adverse actions were taken against the applicant for his disciplinary problems during his previous enrollment in the course.  He opined that a second chance would allow the Army to ferret out the applicant’s clinical competence and personality fitness for officership.  The basic request and the results of the recommendation are also not available for review by the Board.

On 16 July 1997, in response to a letter sent by the applicant to the University of Oklahoma, legal counsel for the University responded to the applicant’s indirect threats of legal action against the University if he did not receive the necessary certified documents he needed to reflect course completion of the MPAP.  He was informed by legal counsel that the Program Director of the MPAP at the Academy of Health Sciences was responsible for issuing such a document.

The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 September 1998.

The supporting statement submitted by the applicant with his application from a PA (major) that recommended him for the MPAP indicates that he was present for a General Officer’s Review Board on 15 January 1996 that was convened to review the applicant’s case.  He contends that the course director had to be silenced by the presiding officer due to bickering and because there was insufficient evidence to support the director’s claim of academic or nonacademic deficiency, the commander who had previously supported relief, recommended reinstatement.

In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Board Agency’s legal advisor who opined, in effect, that there was no injustice in the applicant’s case and that in light of his indiscipline, the Board should refrain from second-guessing the medical community responsible for educating medical professionals by either commissioning the applicant or allowing him a second opportunity to undergo training.  The legal advisor recommended that his case be denied.  

The advisory opinion and all associated documents used therein by the legal staff were provided to the applicant for comment and the applicant responded in effect, that the legal opinion is a group of snapshots taken out of context, that it disregards an improper set of academic guidelines, distorts his academic competence, ignores the fact that his course director distorted the facts and coerced other physicians to support his case to the extent of stacking the oral board examinations.  He further states that the opinion ignores the fact that the Board of Inquiry sided with him yet failed to do so in writing.  It also ignores the major general’s recommendation and the fact that he received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Oklahoma that is awarded upon successful completion of the PA course and that he has been unjustly denied the opportunity to take the National Certification Examination.  Furthermore, the opinion ignores his impeccable service record.  He goes on to state that while his case is both simple and complex, the misrepresentations of the course director cannot be overlooked. 

Department of the Army Circular 601-91-1 provided the requirements for the MPAP for Fiscal Years 1991 – 1992.  It states, in pertinent part, that the MPAP solicits applications from active duty, active Army personnel who have at least 60 semester hours of transferable credits from an accredited college or university and had between 3 and 8 years of active Federal service.  At the time, the MPAP was affiliated with the University of Oklahoma which had a degree-producing PA Training Program in its curriculum.  Students who met the admission criteria of the university and successfully completed all required training in phases I and II, would be awarded a degree by the affiliated university.  Upon successful completion of phase II, an eligible student may be tendered a Reserve appointment as a USAR officer in the SP Corps.  If a student fails to successfully complete training or if appointment as a commissioned officer is not tendered, the student would be required to complete the remaining period of enlistment.   

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The Board notes that not only did the applicant not submit relevant documentation such as the results of the General Officer Review Board, he also has not submitted complete copies of the other actions that occurred in his case. It is apparent that he submitted only those things that were favorable to his case or those that he wanted the Board to see.  The documents submitted are very selective in nature and do not give the Board sufficient details relating to his relief.

3.  Given the passage of time that has occurred since his removal from the course and the fact that he was put on probation/extended twice in the course, the Board must presume that the actions taken by the Army in his case were in accordance with applicable regulations.

4.  While there has been no explanation provided as to how he obtained his degree from the affiliated university without successfully completing Phase II of the MPAP, the applicant’s contention that he is qualified to be a PA and to be commissioned as such by virtue of his having obtained a degree, is without merit. The applicable regulation governing the MPAP does not preclude persons who have a degree from applying for that program; however, for those who do not have a degree at the time they are accepted into the program; arrangements were made with an affiliated university to award them a degree for their participation in the Army’s program.

5.  The Board also notes that a medical doctor who has a degree is not automatically conferred the right to practice medicine until such time as he has passed the appropriate certification examinations.  In the applicant’s case, he did not successfully complete Phase II of the MPAP and therefore was not certified by the Army.  Accordingly, he was not authorized to act in the capacity of a PA or to be appointed as such.

6.  Additionally, the applicant accepted the conditions of successful completion of both phases of the MPAP as a condition of being certified and commissioned as a PA at the time he applied for the course.  While there are many unexplained issues in regards to his relief from the course, the applicant had the obligation to follow the instructions of his preceptors who were responsible for ensuring that he successfully progressed in his training.

7.  While he may not have agreed with the manner in which his training was being conducted, he had more than enough experience in the Army as well as experience as a medic to understand the use and purpose of his chain of command.  Instead of inviting controversy or disobeying the instructions of his preceptors he had the option to seek assistance from his chain of command to resolve any problems he was experiencing.  However, given that he was put on probation on at least two occasions, it appears that he simply chose to ignore the instructions of his preceptors.  Accordingly, given the available circumstances, it appears that the personnel responsible for his training gave him every opportunity to demonstrate his ability to be a PA and a commissioned officer; however, when he failed to do so he was properly relieved from the course. 

8.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and while the applicant has been successful in his enlisted medical career in the Army; after reviewing all of the available evidence, to include his rebuttal of the legal advisory opinion, the Board finds no basis to either reinstate him to the MPAP or to commission him as a PA.

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mdm _  __tnk ___  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029189	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/12/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  14	102.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.