RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03153

	.		COUNSEL:  

			HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His military record be corrected as follows:

1.  His Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 10 March 2010, be 
removed.  

2.  His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 23 March 2010 be 
removed.  

3.  Any documents pertaining to a proposed revocation of a 
security clearance or access to classified material be removed.

4.  His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed.  

5.  Adverse documents in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) from 
August 2003 through 15 October 2010 be removed.  

6.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 
4 August 2009 through 3 August 2010 be voided and replaced with 
a new OPR indicating “Meets Standards.”

7.  His Inactive Duty Training (IDT) points withheld for time 
spent working with the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) be reinstated.  

8.  He be awarded the First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC) for the 
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the period of 4 August 2006 
through 3 August 2009.  

9.  Any documentation concerning adverse action taken, or 
proposed, by the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) be removed.  

10.  He be reinstated as an active member of the Air Force 
Reserve, effective 15 October 2010, with award of IDT points 
consistent with the average IDT points he earned between 
1 March 2008 and 31 March 2010.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 25-page brief the applicant, through counsel, makes the 
following contentions:

1.  He enjoyed a very successful military career until two years 
prior to his forced premature retirement in October 2010.  In 
2008 his USAFA Admission Liaison Officer (ALO) program 
supervisors began questioning his military duty point 
submissions.  They initiated two formal investigations, one 
based upon an Inspector General (IG) complaint and the other 
through a Command Directed Investigation (CDI).  

		a. In October 2008, an IG complaint was filed which 
accused him of having submitted a fraudulent AF IMT 40A, Record 
of Individual Inactive Duty Training.  The complaint alleged 
that he filed inaccurate and false claims for IDT points.  The 
complaint originated with Major A, the Liaison Officer Director 
(LOD) who supervised the ALOs.  Major A was passed over by the 
same board that selected him for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel 
in July 2008 but remained his designated supervisor despite the 
rank inversion this structure created.  The IG determined that 
the complaint against him was not substantiated.  

		b. In June 2009, a CDI was ordered by the USAFA 
Superintendent, due to a troubling command climate.  In the 
course of the CDI the issue of the fraudulent AF IMT 40A was 
again brought up.  The investigating officer commented that the 
submission was reviewed multiple times by unit personnel, unit 
supervision and independent sources.  All sources except for his 
immediate supervisor found little to no cause to unambiguously 
believe that he had falsified his AF IMT 40A.  The investigating 
officer stated that the preponderance of available evidence 
reflected there was no intent to defraud the government when he 
submitted his AF IMT 40A.  The investigation was completed and 
no disciplinary actions were taken.  

2.  Although twice exonerated, his supervisors continued to 
investigate fraudulent military duty submissions.  Except for a 
few submissions relating to time spent with his military 
counsel, none of his duty point submissions were disapproved.  

3.  Simultaneously, USAFA officials were actively engaged with 
his civilian employer, American Airlines (AA), in a 
collaborative attempt to justify termination of his AA 
employment for alleged abuse of military leave.  Although AA 
cited 43 instances of inappropriate conduct, an arbitrator found 
no abuse of military leave and only one contractual 
transgression and ordered his reinstatement with restoration of 
benefits, seniority, and back pay for all but 20 days.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to copies of documents extracted from the 
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) the applicant is a 
former commissioned officer of the Air Force Reserves.  He was 
progressively promoted to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel, (O-
5), with an effective date of rank and pay grade of 
25 July 2008.  Effective 15 October 2010, the applicant was, 
voluntarily, assigned to the Retired Reserve section awaiting 
pay at age 60 (23 June 2021).  

2.  Regarding removal of his OPR for the period of 3 August 2009 
through 2 August 2010; the applicant did not file an appeal 
through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports, due to the fact that he is in retired status 
and is not authorized to file an appeal through the ERAB.  

		a. The following is a resume of his last five OPR ratings 
commencing with the report closing on 2 August 2006.  

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  2 Aug 2006			Meets Standards (MS)
			  2 Aug 2007			MS
			  2 Aug 2008			MS
			  2 Aug 2009			MS
			  2 Aug 2010*			Does Not Meet Standards

* contested report.  

3.  On 30 December 2009, the applicant filed an IG complaint via 
AF IMT 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and 
Abuse Complaint Registration (Exhibit C), with the Department of 
Defense IG (DoD/IG) and presented six allegations against his 
squadron of assignment.  DoD/IG forwarded the complaint to the 
Secretary of the Air Force IG (SAF/IG), who in turn, forwarded 
the complaint to the USAFA/IG.  By letter dated 
10 February 2010, the USAFA/IG provided the applicant the 
following analysis of the allegations and subsequent findings:  

		a.  USAFA/RR denied his AF IMT 40A points for time spent 
in defense, in violation of military policy and fair access to 
defense services.  Finding:  Not Substantiated. Rationale: AFI 
36-2017, Admissions Liaison Officer Program, dated 27 Feb 95, 
Table Al.l., Activities Authorized for Point Credit, lists 19 
items that are authorized activities for ALOs to receive points.  
Trips to ADC or IG are not listed as an authorized activity 
under this table.  Furthermore, neither AFI 36-2017 nor  AFMAN 
36-8001 (22 Jan 04) Reserve Personnel Participation and Training 
Procedures, mandate that a reservist must be awarded points for 
visits to their ADC or IG.  

		b.  USAFA/RR made pen and ink changes to his September and 
October 2009 40As and filed them without his signature in 
violation of Air Force Records Management and established legal 
principles.  Finding:  Not Substantiated. Rationale:  Their 
understanding is that the applicant initially signed his 40A for 
this timeframe and then withdrew his signature through his ADC 
after the pen and ink changes.  Certifying officials and LODs 
are obligated to validate trips claimed by an ALO.  The items 
which were lined out on the 40A were not identified as being 
authorized to award points under the guidance of Table Al.l., of 
AFI 36-2017. Furthermore, the burden falls on the ALO to provide 
justification to command of the trips claimed.  

		c.  USAFA/RR LODs chose to take arbitrary action (or 
inaction) based on personal bias and unfounded  allegations in 
violation of the standards of good order and discipline and 
appropriate supervisory roles.  Finding:  Not Substantiated.  
Rationale:  After reviewing the information submitted, they 
could not discern any preponderance of evidence that would 
indicate arbitrary action or personal bias.  The leadership 
consistently questions other ALOs regarding Form 40As when 
issues of concern come to their attention.  This practice is not 
remarkable to the validation process.  

		d.  The USAFA/RR chain of command structure is fatally 
flawed and inappropriately denied his Article 138 complaint in 
violation of Article 138, UCMJ and AFI 51-904, Complaints Of 
Wrongs Under Article 138, Uniform Code Of Military Justice 
(UCMJ).  Finding:  Not Substantiated.  Rationale:  The USAFA-
level chain of command is just like any other MAJCOM.  USAFA has 
a squadron section commander who is on "G-series" orders.  The 
squadron  section commander is placed on "G-series" orders so 
that they can administer UCMJ actions on behalf of the Directors 
and other commanders, who are not on "G-series" orders, where 
appropriate.  Regarding the Article 138 issue, this matter has 
already been addressed.  The applicant provided a 
29 October 2007, e-mail from HQ USAF/JAA which supported that 
USAFA/CC took proper actions considering the Article 138.  

		e.  USAFA/RR is disseminating personal information on 
multiple Air Force personnel and prospective cadets in violation 
of the Privacy Act.  Finding:  Not Substantiated.  Rationale:  
The applicant has already filed a complaint on this issue with 
the USAFA Privacy Act Manager, the proper channel for this 
complaint.  

		f.  USAFA/RR requested his civilian employer flight 
schedule and contact information without a legal basis in 
violation of the Privacy Act and without appropriate military 
authority.  Finding:  Not Substantiated.  Rationale:  Command 
attempted to obtain information about the applicant for official 
purposes.  This does not violate the Privacy Act because they 
did not release any personal information.  

USAFA/IG advised the applicant that if he had any questions 
regarding the matter he could contact the USAFA Chief of 
Complaints.  

4.  On 15 January 2010, the applicant provided a copy of his IG 
complaint to the offices of his State Representative and 
Senator.  On 29 March 2010, SAF/LL requested assistance in 
answering the congressional inquiries.  A copy of the 
10 February 2010, closure letter to the applicant was sent to 
SAF/LL in response to the congressional inquiries.  

5.  On 30 August 2010, the applicant contacted AFRC/IG alleging 
reprisal for making a protected communication (PC) to USAFA/IG 
and claimed the following actions were taken against him as a 
result of the PC:  1) he received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) 
and Letter of Reprimand (LOR), 2) USAFA/RR provided information 
to his civilian employer, 3) creation of an Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) and placement of LOR into his Officer 
Selection Record (OSR), 4) referral Officer Performance Record 
(OPR), 5) suspension of security clearance and creation of a 
Security Information File (SIF), 6) suspended pay and points 
status, and 7) his request for transfer to another unit was not 
approved.  AFRC/IG transferred the applicant’s complaint to 
SAF/IGQ who then transferred the complaint to USAFA/IG on 
8 September 2010.  

6.  USAFA/IG reviewed the allegations and, based upon a thorough 
analysis of the documentation, determined an investigation into 
the allegations of reprisal under Title 10 U.S.C. §1034 was not 
warranted.  Each allegation was assessed for abuse of authority 
and found to be not substantiated.  The preponderance of the 
evidence established that the personnel actions against the 
applicant would have been taken even if the protected 
communications had not been made.  The evidence supported that 
the actions taken by the applicant’s leadership were reasonable 
and that any other supervisor/commander would have taken similar 
actions based on the applicant’s history of failing, and 
sometimes outright refusal, to comply with requests for 
additional details to validate his Form 40As from his supervisor 
and the ALO Program Director.  USAFA/JA established the actions 
taken by USAFA leadership were appropriate consequences for the 
applicant’s refusal to provide requested information to his 
supervisors and for using his ALO duties to manage his civilian 
employment.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

USAFA/RR recommends denial.  USAFA/RR states on multiple 
occasions the applicant willfully disobeyed direct orders and 
policies, which brought his judgment and ability to adhere to 
the standards expected of a United States Air Force officer into 
question.  Furthermore, the applicant’s actions were detrimental 
to the good order and discipline of the Admissions Liaison 
Officer program.  

The complete USAFA/RR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

RMG/CC recommends denial.  RMG/CC states that the items in which 
the applicant is seeking relief are either not applicable to the 
Readiness Management Group (not in the applicant’s military 
file) and/or are unit connected and therefore must be addressed 
by USAFA, the applicant’s unit of assignment.  Upon review of 
obtainable documentation related to the matter, they estimate 
that the measures and actions carried out by the applicant’s 
active duty chain of command were thoroughly vetted, legal and 
binding.  

The complete RMG/CC evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFRC/JA recommends denial.  AFRC/JA states the applicant argues 
that he was treated unjustly when he was given an LOA and LOR.  
USAFA/RR argues that the adverse actions taken before the 
applicant’s voluntary retirement were justifiable.  HQ AFRC does 
not have access to the referenced CDI nor any of the purported 
IG investigations.  USAFA has the required background 
information and supporting documentation to opine on this 
application.  While AFRC retained shared administrative control 
(ADCON), USAFA exercised primary ADCON in these actions.  
However, judging by a preponderance of the evidence available, 
they believe the applicant has not proven any error or 
injustice.  

The complete AFRC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  A1K states their position supports 
that of the AFRC/JA and RMG/CC without further input.  

The complete AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a five-page response the applicant and counsel state that the 
applicant’s dispute is primarily with the U.S. Air Force Academy 
not with the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).  They counter the 
advisory opinions point-by-point and indicate that they consider 
the AFRC comments to be conclusory in nature with no supporting 
documentation and as such, the advisory opinions should be given 
little weight.  They concluded that there is nothing that 
justifies the actions of the USAFA officials in this case and 
further state that the USAFA attack upon the applicant through 
his civilian employment was vindictive, malicious, and 
completely beyond the scope of their supervisory authority.  
USAFA actions must be set aside and the applicant should be 
allowed to resume his military career.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 regarding the 
applicant’s request for award of the First Oak Leaf Cluster (1st  
OLC) for the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) with inclusive 
dates of 4 August 2006 through 3 August 2009.  We took careful 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, the applicant has not provided any 
documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that he was 
recommended or that he meets the criteria for the MSM.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 
this portion of the application.  

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 
error or injustice with respect to the remainder of the 
applicant’s requests.  The applicant alleges that he has been a 
victim of reprisal for making a protected communication (PC) and 
has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (Title 10 U.S.C. § 1034).  Based on this, he is 
requesting corrective actions as noted in his appeal to the 
Board.  After carefully considering the totality of the evidence 
before us, we are persuaded that relief is warranted.  In this 
respect, we believe the evidence provided makes it clear that a 
serious personality conflict existed between the applicant and 
certain members of his chain of command as validated by 
Inspector General (IG) complaints filed by his supervisory chain 
and the applicant himself, as well as the Commander Directed 
Investigation (CDI) ordered by the USAFA Superintendent due to a 
troubling command climate.  We note the IG complaint, filed by 
the applicant’s supervisory chain in December 2008 alleged he 
submitted a fraudulent AF IMT 40A, Record of Individual Inactive 
Duty Training, which contained inaccurate and false claims for 
IDT points; however, the IG determined the complaint was not 
substantiated.  In spite of the documented failure to 
substantiate the allegation, the issue of the fraudulent AF IMT 
40A was once again raised in the June 2009 CDI.  Of note is the 
investigating officer’s comment that the submission was reviewed 
multiple times by unit personnel, unit supervision and 
independent sources and all sources except for the applicant’s 
immediate supervisor found little to no cause to unambiguously 
believe that he had falsified his AF IMT 40A, further providing 
evidence of the tenuous relationship between the applicant and 
his immediate supervisor.  The investigation was completed with 
the preponderance of available evidence reflecting there was no 
intent to defraud the government on the part of the applicant.  
Also noted is the USAFA/IG determination that an investigation 
into the complaint alleging reprisal under Title 10 U.S.C. § 
1034, was not warranted.  Nonetheless, we are persuaded that a 
preponderance of the evidence submitted supports the applicant 
was improperly disadvantaged by his supervisory chain given the 
level of administrative and disciplinary actions taken against 
him to include; removal from his position as Deputy, Admissions 
Liaison Officer (ALO); suspended access to the ALO website, 
corroborations with his civilian employer resulting in his 
termination from civilian employment; initiation of a UIF; 
processing for involuntary separation with resultant suspension 
of access to classified information and prohibited participation 
in activities for pay or retirement points; and denial of the 
opportunity to transfer to another assignment.  We believe the 
applicant has provided significant and sufficient evidence that 
we call into question the basis for the numerous administrative 
actions taken against him after he made the December 2009 
protected communication in the form of an IG complaint.  The not 
substantiated finding of the supervisory chain’s December 2008 
IG complaint and the CDI evidence reflecting there was no intent 
to defraud the government on the part of the applicant, 
establish there was no basis for the adverse actions taken 
against the applicant.  In view of the above, we are persuaded 
that the adverse actions taken against the applicant as a result 
of the alleged submission of a fraudulent AF IMT 40A, are 
factually baseless and should be removed from his records.

5.  With regard to the applicant’s request to remove his 
referral report; we note that concurrently the issuance of the 
LOA, LOR, UIF and subsequent referral report relied on the 
allegations that he took advantage of his military position to 
the detriment of his civilian employer, submitted a fraudulent 
AF IMT 40A, Record of Individual Inactive Duty Training, which 
contained inaccurate and false claims for IDT points and refused 
to provide requested information of his physical whereabouts on 
non-duty days.  We note the first assertion was invalidated by 
an independent arbitrator with an outcome of the applicant being 
reinstated to full duty with his civilian employer with a 
concurrent promotion, in addition, as noted above, the IG 
complaint and CDI allegations of fraudulent claims for IDT 
points were found to be not substantiated.  Based on the fact 
that there was no validated evidence of misconduct on the part 
of the applicant, we are persuaded that the contested report is 
not an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance during 
the period in question and the aforementioned personality 
conflicts may have hindered the rating chain’s abilities to 
objectively assess the applicant's performance.  In view of the 
foregoing, we recommend the contested report be declared void, 
removed from his military record, and replaced with a new report 
indicating “meets standards.”  

6.  The Board notes the RMG/CC states the LOA, LOR, and UIF are 
not in the applicant’s military record.  Notwithstanding, we 
recommend any documents with reference to these administrative 
actions be removed from his military record.  Additionally, we 
recommend any adverse documents associated with his OSR, the 
intent to withdraw his security clearance, or any other adverse 
action taken or proposed by the USAFA be removed from his 
military record.  

7.  The applicant requests that his inactive duty training 
points withheld for time spent working with his area defense 
counsel (ADC) for the period of February through October 2009 be 
reinstated.  The OPRs’ recommendations of denial are duly noted, 
however, we have been advised there is nothing in law or policy 
to prohibit a commander from authorizing the use of IDT points 
for such consultation.  Moreover, we note that Air Force Legal 
Operations Agency (AFLOA) policy authorizes ADC services for 
reservists whether or not they are on active duty.  We see no 
clear rationale for the supervisory chain’s decision to withhold 
these points; therefore, we recommend his record be corrected to 
show that he was awarded the additional inactive duty training 
points for training for the period of February through October 
2009.  

8.  We further note that reinstatement as an active member of 
the Air Force Reserve is among the applicant’s requests.  The 
OPRs recommendations are noted; however, after reviewing all of 
the evidence provided, we are persuaded that at the time of his 
“voluntary” retirement the applicant’s circumstances in the loss 
of his civilian employment and prevention from transferring to 
another assignment left little choice but to request an early 
retirement in lieu of his involuntary separation from service.  
We believe continuance as an active member of the Air Force 
Reserve is fitting relief given the circumstances.  Therefore, 
based on the above, we believe the corrections cited below will 
provide the applicant proper and just relief and as such 
recommend his records be corrected as indicated.  

9.  The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal.  
As noted, the applicant’s allegation of reprisal was 
investigated by the USAFA/IG and found to be not substantiated.  
We note the applicant’s contention that after he filed an IG 
complaint alleging reprisal for making a protected communication 
(PC) to USAFA/IG, numerous administrative actions were taken 
against him as mentioned above.  As such, based on the authority 
granted to this board pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. § 1034, we 
reviewed the complete evidence of record to determine whether we 
conclude the applicant has been the victim of reprisal.  Based 
upon our own independent review, we have determined the 
applicant has established he was subjected to reprisal in 
violation of Title 10 U.S.C. § 1034.  The evidence provided 
supports the allegation of adverse personnel actions taken 
against the applicant.  The applicant was twice subjected to two 
formal investigations, one based upon an Inspector General 
complaint and the other through a Command Directed 
Investigation.  Although twice exonerated, his supervisory chain 
continued to investigate fraudulent military duty submissions.  
Shortly thereafter he made the protected communication, as 
documented in his 30 December 2009, IG complaint presenting six 
allegations against his squadron of assignment.  The allegations 
were found to be not substantiated, however, disciplinary and 
administrative actions occurred after the PC and continued until 
the applicant applied for a voluntary retirement in lieu of 
further actions.  In view of the totality of the circumstances 
in this case, we believe our recommendations for correction 
constitute full and fitting relief.  

10.  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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

	a.  The Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 10 March 2010, be 
declared void and removed from his records.  

	b.  The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 23 March 2010, be 
declared void and removed from his records.  

	c.  The documents pertaining to a proposed revocation of a 
security clearance and access to classified material be declared 
void and removed from his records.  

	d.  The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be declared void 
and removed from his records.  

	e.  The adverse action documents in his Officer Selection 
Record (OSR) from August 2003 through 15 October 2010, be 
declared void and removed from his records.  

	f.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 
4 August 2009 through 3 August 2010, be declared void and 
replaced with a new OPR indicating “Meets Standards.”

	g.  He was awarded an additional 36 non-paid Inactive Duty 
Training (IDT) points for retention/retirement year 
04 August 2008 through 03 August 2009.  

	h.  Any documentation concerning adverse action taken, or 
proposed, by the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA), be declared 
void and removed from his record.  

	i.  On 15 October 2010, he was not released from active 
Reserve status but, on that date, he was continued in active 
Reserve status and was ordered Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
to his home of selection.  

	j.  He was awarded 119 paid IDT points for 
retention/retirement year 4 August 2010 to 3 August 2011, for a 
satisfactory year of service.  

	k.  He was awarded 119 paid IDT points for 
retention/retirement year 4 August 2011 to 3 August 2012, for a 
satisfactory year of service.  

	l.  He was awarded 119 paid IDT points for 
retention/retirement year 4 August 2012 to 3 August 2013, for a 
satisfactory year of service.  

	m.  He be reassigned to an Air Force Reserve Category E 
participation program position within 120 days of this 
directive.  

	n.  His corrected record be considered for promotion to the 
grade of colonel (0-6) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for 
the Calendar Year (CY) 2012 (V0612A) Colonel Central Selection 
Board.  

	o.  It is further directed that any nonselections for 
promotion to the grade of colonel prior to receiving at least 
four Officer Performance Reports with at least 250 days 
supervision, in the grade of lieutenant colonel, be, and hereby 
are, set aside.  

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 25 April 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-03153:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 June 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Report of Investigation - WITHDRAWN.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, USAFA/RR, dated 30 November 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, RMG/CC, dated 30 November 2012.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 10 December 2012
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 17 December 2012.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 February 2013.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 23 January 2013, w/atchs.