RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02811
            INDEX CODES:  110.03, 111.02,
                               131.09, 141.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 Mar 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty.

His Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  (Referral)  rendered  for  the
period 13 Feb 04 to 15 Dec 04 be declared void and  removed  from  his
records.

He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt), with a  date
of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 04 and back pay.

He be authorized to cross-train into a new career field.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Poor leadership and reprisal against him for  being  a  whistle-blower
led to his referral EPR, withholding of his promotion to TSgt,  denial
of reenlistment, and his discharge from the Air Force.

The  promotion  withholding  and  reenlistment  denial  actions   were
erroneously processed.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 May 89.

His EPR profile since 1994 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       9 Feb 94        4
       9 Feb 95        4
       9 Feb 96        4
       9 Feb 97        4
      10 Aug 97        4
      10 Aug 98        4
      10 Aug 99        5
      10 Aug 00        4
      12 Feb 03        4
      12 Feb 04        4
  *   15 Dec 04        2 (Referral)

* Contested Report.

Available documentation indicates that, on 27 May  04,  the  applicant
was relieved from his position of assistant crew chief and advised  by
his supervisor (SMSgt R---) he  was  going  to  receive  a  letter  of
reprimand (LOR) for reporting four hours late for his duty shift on 23
May 04.

On 10 Jun 04, he was given an LOR  for  reporting  late  to  his  duty
shift.  He alleged the LOR was in reprisal for his wife’s  attempt  to
talk with his commander on 26 May 04 and for his making a complaint to
the 58th Special  Operations  Inspector  General  (58 SOW/IG)  Liaison
regarding his unit’s supervision and morale.

On 4 Nov 04, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC)  from
his  supervisor  as  feedback  on  his  previous  30  days   of   duty
performance.

On 17 Nov 04, he received an LOR for failure to account  for  all  his
tools prior to going off his shift.

On 15 Dec 04, the applicant’s supervisor gave him a referral  EPR  and
recommended  that  he  not  be  allowed  to  reenlist  on  6  Jan  05.
Subsequently, he was  referred  for  an  emergency  commander-directed
mental health evaluation, on 6 Jan 05, based on comments made  by  the
applicant.

An AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, indicates
that on 4 Jan 05, the applicant’s supervisor  nonrecommended  him  for
reenlistment.  He indicated that in the past year, the  applicant  was
removed from his duty as primary crew chief, and was assigned under  a
more senior TSgt as  an  assistant  crew  chief.   It  was  noted  the
applicant was the ranking staff sergeant (SSgt) at the  time  and  was
assigned to a position normally held by more  junior  staff  sergeants
and or senior  airmen  (SrA).   Additionally,  other  staff  sergeants
junior in rank were assigned as primary  crew  chiefs  ahead  of  him.
In Jun 04, the applicant was issued a letter of  reprimand  (LOR)  and
removed “with cause” from his position as assistant crew chief.  While
performance feedback was conducted with  the  applicant  in  order  to
provide him with achievable goals, little to no improvement  had  been
made  in  the  area  of  commitment  and  service  before  self.    He
continually rationalized his substandard performance as the  fault  of
others.  His performance to date did not warrant he  be  selected  for
reenlistment.

On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s
recommendation and nonselected him for  reenlistment.   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt of his nonselection for reenlistment and appealed
the decision.

On 10 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he
was withholding his promotion to the grade of TSgt.  The  duration  of
this action  would  be  from  1  Jan  05  until  the  reason(s)  which
necessitated  the  withhold  action  no  longer  existed  and  he  was
recommended for promotion.

On 2 Feb 05, the applicant filed a complaint with HQ AETC/IGQ alleging
reprisal under 10 USC 1034.

On  18  Mar  05,  the  applicant’s  appeal  of  his  nonselection  for
reenlistment was denied by the appeal  authority,  and  the  applicant
acknowledged the denial of his appeal on 21 Mar 05.

On 31 Mar  05,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active  Service)  in
the grade of SSgt.  He was credited with 15 years, 10  months,  and  1
day of active service.

A Record of Complaint Analysis (RCA) for Allegations of Reprisal under
10  USC  1034   indicates   a   determination   was   made   that   an
IG investigation into the applicant’s allegation of reprisal  was  not
warranted.

On 13 Apr 05, HQ AETC/IGQ approved the RCA  and  recommended  that  an
investigation under 10 USC 1034  was  not  warranted.   On  25 Apr 05,
SAF/IGQ concurred with this recommendation and forwarded  the  RCA  to
the IG, Department of Defense (DoD), Military Reprisal  Investigations
(IG, DoD/MRI) for a final disposition.  On  13  May  05,  IG,  DoD/MRI
concurred that further investigation  into  the  applicant’s  reprisal
allegations was not warranted, and that they considered the matter  to
be closed.

On 7 Jun 05,  HQ  AETC/IGQ  notified  the  applicant  of  IG,DoD/MRI’s
decision and further stipulated that they considered the matter to  be
closed as well.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP  indicated  that  AFPC/DPPPEP  recommended  denial  of   the
applicant’s request to void the contested EPR,  and  that  AFPC/DPPPWB
recommended denial of the applicant’s request to reinstate his rank to
TSgt, with a DOR of 1 Oct 04.   They  stated  the  applicant  did  not
provide specific information as to why the report was inaccurate.   He
did mention the EPR was a  biased  report.   After  a  review  of  the
applicant's records and report, they could not find the report  to  be
inaccurate.  They noted that on 25 Apr 05, the IG found  the  member's
complaint did not warrant a reprisal investigation.  In addition,  the
IG found the actions taken against the applicant were both appropriate
and justified.  The  IG  also  found  the  applicant's  report  to  be
accurate based on his overall decline in duty performance and the  two
LORs he had received.

AFPC/DPPP noted the applicant was considered and tentatively  selected
for promotion to  TSgt  during  cycle  04E6.   He  received  promotion
sequence number  1425  which  would  have  incremented  on  1 Oct  04.
However, on 30 Sep 04, his commander  deferred  his  promotion  for  a
period of three months, effective 1 Oct 04.  He received an LOC  on  4
Nov 04, an LOR on 17 Nov  04,  a  referral  EPR  on  15  Dec  04,  was
nonselected for reenlistment on 7  Jan  05,  and  had  an  unfavorable
information file (UIF) established on 12 Jan 05.  At the  end  of  the
deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion
had been placed in a withhold status because of his  nonselection  for
reenlistment.  He was subsequently discharged in the grade of SSgt.

AFI 36-2502, paragraph  3.2.5.,  gives  the  immediate  commander  the
authority to defer promotion and pay one  to  three  months  past  the
original effective date to determine if the  airman  meets  acceptable
behavior or performance standards.  The promotion authority must  make
a promotion decision, in writing,  upon  completion  of  the  deferral
period.  The DOR and effective date is the  first  day  of  the  month
after the deferral period ends.  In this case,  the  commander  placed
the  applicant's  promotion  in  a  withholding  status  due  to   his
nonselection for reenlistment.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502,  Table
1.2, this is not an acceptable reason for withholding a promotion.  As
a matter of fact, denial of reenlistment is an  eligibility  condition
for promotion under Table 1.1, Rule 16 of  AFI  36-2502.   Should  the
Board feel the applicant suffered an injustice and grants his  request
for reinstatement to TSgt, his DOR and effective date would be  1  Feb
05 in accordance AFI 36-2502, paragraph 3.2.5.5.

According to AFPC/DPPP the commander acted within  his  authority  and
according to  policy  and  procedures  when  he  deferred  applicant's
promotion.   Based  on  the  deferral  action,   had   the   commander
recommended promotion, the applicant's DOR and  effective  would  have
been 1 Feb 05 (the first day of the month after  the  deferral  period
ends), not the original DOR and effective date of 1  Oct  04,  as  the
applicant requests.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial of the applicant’s  request  to  receive
orders to cross-train.  According to AFI  36-2626,  Airman  Retraining
Program, airmen are ineligible to apply for retraining if  their  most
recent EPR is  less  than  a  three  (3),  a  referral,  or  they  are
ineligible for promotion or reenlistment.  The  applicant  received  a
two (2) EPR which was also a referral on 15 Dec  04,  and  was  denied
reenlistment on 7 Jan 05.  Consequently, he was  ineligible  to  apply
for retraining. If the applicant’s EPR is removed from his record  and
his reenlistment eligibility is changed to a favorable one, they would
at that time consider  him  for  retraining  into  another  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).

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

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial   indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation,  and  was   within   the
discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial of the applicant’s request  for  reentry
in the Air Force  indicating  that  according  to  AFI  36-2606,  unit
commanders have total Selective Reenlistment Program  (SRP)  selection
or nonselection authority.  The applicant is authorized to process  an
SRP  nonse1ection  appeal  to  his  respective  wing  commander.   The
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) is required to  assist  the  applicant
and send the case file to the base legal office for review within five
(5)  workdays.   The  MPF  is  also  required  to  include  the  legal
advisories in the case file and send them  to  the  applicant's  group
commander within five (5) workdays.  As per AFI  36-2606,  "when  wing
commanders are the final  appeal  authorities,  group  commanders  may
approve the appeals and complete an  AF  IMT  418,  Section  VIII,  or
recommend  disapproval.    When   the   group   commander   recommends
disapproval, the MPF  sends  the  case  files  to  the  airmen's  wing
commanders.  The MPF did not submit the appeal  within  the  five  (5)
workdays; however, the appeal process  was  completed  on  21  Mar  05
before  the  applicant's  date  of  separation  of  31  Mar  05.    In
AFPC/DPPAE’s view, the appeal process was properly  completed  by  the
appeal authority.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/JA recommended denial indicating that no error or  injustice  has
been established warranting relief.  To obtain relief,  the  applicant
must show by a preponderance of the evidence there exists  some  error
or injustice warranting corrective action by the  Board.   The  United
States Claims Court has repeatedly defined an injustice in the context
of the Board for  Correction  of  Military  Records  (BCMR)  cases  as
"treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of  justice.”
In the present case, the applicant asserts  a  series  of  errors  and
injustices imposed upon him which ultimately resulted in his discharge
from the Air Force.  Notwithstanding  HQ  AETC/IGQ’s  finding  to  the
contrary, the applicant still  maintains  the  administrative  actions
taken against him were "done as a reprisal for being  a  whistleblower
because he took pictures of the restroom walls depicting the state  of
morale in the squadron."   He  also  requests  that  the  "last-minute
signing  of  ill-prepared  documents  should  be   investigated   more
thoroughly."  On  this  point,  the  applicant  contends  the  "former
leadership in his squadron processed the aforementioned paperwork with
little or no regard to time constraints or proper procedures with  the
goal of teaching him a lesson."

AFPC/JA noted the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, now codified
at 10 USC 1034, allows for correction of military  records  to  review
"whistleblower" allegations and  to  recommend  corrective  action  in
favor of "whistleblowers.”  This law prohibits "retaliatory  personnel
actions" which stem from "protected communications"  made  by  service
personnel to members of Congress, to IGs, and to Department of Defense
(DoD)   audit,   inspection,   investigative,   or   law   enforcement
organizations.  When  an  applicant  invokes  the  protection  of  the
Military Whistleblowers Protection Act or when  the  question  of  its
applicability is  raised,  the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of
Military Records (AFBCMR) must make a specific  determination  in  its
decision.

The applicant's record  reveals  two  privileged  communications  that
occurred prior to the administrative actions taken against  him:   his
wife's  26  May  04  discussion  with  his  commander  requesting  the
applicant be placed on the day shift schedule and of changing  shifts;
and, his 2 Jun 04 discussion with 58  SOW/IG  about  perceived  unfair
management practices in his squadron and the  disclosure  of  graffiti
seemingly  critical  of  his  squadron's  leadership.   HQ  AETC/IGQ's
analysis of the applicant's reprisal  complaint  fully  discussed  the
circumstances surrounding each administrative action taken against him
and if they were influenced by the protected communications.  In  each
case, the officials taking  negative  personnel  actions  against  the
applicant based their decisions upon the applicant's "duty performance
and breeches of discipline during the preceding months."  In only  one
instance did the  responsible  official--the  applicant's  supervisor,
SMSgt R--- actually know of the protected communications before taking
any adverse personnel actions.   HQ AETC/IGQ  fully  investigated  the
LOR, removal as assistant crew chief, referral EPR, and recommendation
to deny the applicant's reenlistment in which SMSgt R--- was involved.
 In each of these instances, the report found SMSgt  R---  was  acting
within his authority, the actions were  appropriate  and  procedurally
correct, SMSgt R's  actions  were  consistent  with  the  disciplinary
measures taken against similarly  situated  airmen,  and  he  was  not
motivated by the protected communications.

When contesting military  personnel  actions,  an  applicant  bears  a
difficult  burden  and  must  overcome  the  "strong,  but  rebuttable
presumption that administrators of the  military,  like  other  public
officials, discharge their duties correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good
faith.”  The applicant has not provided  convincing  evidence  the  HQ
AETC/IGQ  inquiry  was  improperly  conducted  and  no  evidence   the
officials in his supervisory chain  retaliated  against  him  for  the
protected communications made by him and his wife.

AFPC/JA noted the applicant claims regarding procedural irregularities
in the processing of his reenlistment denial and promotion withholding
actions.  After reviewing the applicant's record, they indicated  that
they identified some initial concerns with  how  these  administrative
actions were processed.  However, based on reasons detailed  in  their
advisory, there are no legal errors requiring the AFBCMR to invalidate
these actions.

AFPC/JA  indicated  that  AFI  36-2502  governs  enlistment  promotion
matters, and that withholding actions are intended  to  address  cases
such as when an airman  selected  for  promotion  is  the  subject  of
criminal  or  military  investigations,  awaiting   decisions   on   a
conscientious  objector  application,  or  in  the  drug  and  alcohol
rehabilitation  program.    Perhaps   the   commander   confused   the
terminology in the applicant’s case, but there is no authority in  AFI
36-2502 to “withhold” a promotion because an airman  has  been  denied
reenlistment.  Bearing in mind the commander referenced the  provision
which renders airmen  ineligible  for  promotion  if  they  have  been
nonselected for reenlistment, it is logical to infer that he  actually
intended to notify the applicant that he was being “removed” from  the
promotion list.   This  notification  was,  nevertheless,  superfluous
given  that  written  notifications  are  not  necessary  for   airmen
otherwise ineligible for promotion because  of  reasons  that  include
reenlistment nonselection.

Regarding  the  applicant’s  attacks  on   the   processing   of   the
reenlistment denial rendering him ineligible for promotion  and  which
resulted in  his  honorable  discharge  upon  the  expiration  of  his
enlistment, AFPC/JA stated  that  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistment  in  the
United  States  Air  Force,  is  unambiguous  on  the   responsibility
commanders have when determining who will be permitted  to  remain  in
the Air Force.  The Air Force's SRP "objective is to  ensure  the  Air
Force retains only airmen who consistently demonstrate the  capability
and willingness to maintain high professional standards.”  Under  this
program, unit commanders are solely responsible for deciding who will--
and who will not--be selected for  reenlistment.   As  they  determine
which airmen are permitted to reenlist,  commanders  are  directed  to
consider  the  following:   EPR  ratings,  substantiated   unfavorable
information,  the  airman's  willingness  to  comply  with  Air  Force
standards, and the airman's ability (or  lack  of)  to  meet  required
training and duty performance levels.   The  commander's  decision  to
select or not to select an airman for reenlistment must be based  upon
"substantial evidence.”  The evidence  contained  in  the  applicant's
records more than sufficiently establishes the applicant was unfit for
continued military service, and that his commander did not  abuse  his
discretion in nonselecting him for reenlistment.

AFPC/JA indicated it  is  worthy  to  mention  that  the  AF  IMT  418
contained in the applicant's record was incomplete.  This  form  shows
the  applicant's   supervisor   initially   nonrecommended   him   for
reenlistment on 4 Jan 05, and that his commander formally  denied  his
reenlistment on 7 Jan 05.  When the commander notified  the  applicant
of this decision, the applicant exercised  his  appellate  rights  and
requested his wing commander allow him to reenlist on 18 Jan 05.   The
AF IMT 418 in the applicant's record, however, is silent on the result
of the applicant's appeal.   Fortunately,  the  appellate  authority's
legal office maintained a complete copy of this form which  shows  the
appeal was officially denied by the applicant's wing commander  on  18
Mar 05, and the applicant was informed of this decision on 21 Mar 05.

AFPC/JAA further indicated in their advisory that HQ  AFPC/DPPAE  also
recognized the MPF did not submit the applicant’s appeal to the  legal
office in the specified time period indicated in AFI  36-3606.   While
they acknowledge 377 MSS/DPMP inexplicably  waited  over  three  weeks
before forwarding the appeal to 377 ABW/JA, in  AFPC/JA’s  view,  this
delay does not invalidate the appellate authority's ultimate  decision
to deny the appeal.   The  provision  discussing  the  time  frame  to
forward the appeal to the legal  office  is  noticeably  silent  on  a
remedy for failing to so.  Although it may have been an  inconvenience
for the applicant to have waited as long as he did for the results  of
his appeal, he was not denied any mandated  due  process  requirements
when the MPF did not immediately provide the  legal  office  with  the
appeal so they could render their opinion.  The underlying purpose for
this provision is certainly to serve as merely a guideline to expedite
reenlistment denial appeals; a failure to forward  the  appeal  for  a
legal opinion within five days is therefore harmless error.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating, in part, that while he deeply regrets the  recommendations
to deny his appeal, he takes comfort in the fact a final determination
has not been made in his case.  He did his best asking the members  of
his squadron for their written comments, but only  received  character
statements.  At some point in every person’s life, he  must  stand  up
and be counted for the things he believes in.  He knows for a fact the
Air Force is suffering from “reward me now, I’ll work later”  type  of
airmen entering its service  today.   The  senior  leadership  in  his
profession lacked the nurturing  traits  to  keep  these  airmen  long
enough to get them to look past themselves.  In his case, he  was  not
able to attack his supervisor’s credibility to run  a  squadron.   His
supervisor’s mistakes were continually removed from his rebuttals  for
obvious  reasons.   However,   his   credibility   has   been   highly
scrutinized.  The selective enforcement of rules was but  one  of  the
reasons his former superiors were gone before him.

According to the applicant, his dealings with the group commander were
the same as his superiors when she  saw  his  EPRs.   She  felt  there
should have been more five ratings, not looking at the different  jobs
he held.  Feelings throughout the squadron were critical of the senior
leadership as  outlined  in  a  Climate  Assessment  Survey  that  was
generated because of his IG complaint.  To say his superiors  followed
procedures is preposterous.  He realizes his EPRs were not  the  best,
but surely it can be seen they depicted him as a “Jack of all trades.”
 He had not been on the flight line that long compared  to  the  other
jobs he has held within the career field.  He hopes the Board will  be
able to sift through the fog of deception that is his EPRs and the few
months on the flight line to rebuild a badly torn down aircraft.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of  primary  responsibility   (OPRs),   or   the   HQ AETC/IGQ’s   RCA
determination.  In our view, the issues raised by the  applicant  were
more than adequately addressed by the OPRs.  We took  particular  note
of the assessment by AFPC/JA.  Furthermore, we note the  HQ AETC/IGQ’s
RCA determined that an IG investigation of the applicant’s allegations
of reprisal under 10 USC 1034 was not warranted, with the  concurrence
of SAF/IGQ.  SAF/IGQ  forwarded  the  RCA  to  IG,  DoD/MRI  who  also
concurred that further investigation into the applicant’s  allegations
was not warranted, and that they considered the matter to  be  closed.
In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to
the contrary, we conclude 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  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Since a determination was made that the applicant’s allegations of
reprisal did not warrant an IG investigation, it would appear that his
case should not be considered under the  provisions  of  10  USC  1034
(Military Whistleblower Protection Act).  However, based  on  a  legal
determination, this  Board  is  aware  that,  notwithstanding  the  IG
findings,  since  the  applicant  has  alleged  reprisal   under   the
provisions of 10 USC 1034, this case must be considered  and  resolved
within 180 days of its receipt by the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  case  was  considered  as  any   other
application, as provided by 10 USC  1552;  however,  it  was  done  so
within the 180-day time limit.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 Jan 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02811 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Oct 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Nov 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 17 Nov 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, undated.



                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair