RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005553


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard G. Sayre              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request that
he be restored to active duty as a Regular Army officer with constructive
credit for time in service and time in grade.

2.  The officer states, in effect, that:

      a.  he was separated from the Army under a reduction in force in 1992.

      b.  although much of the Army's downsizing during that timeframe was
pretty well thought out, that was not the case with the Reduction in Force
Board and the Selective Early Retirement Board.  Both these boards were
rife with special considerations.  Instead of conducting a Reduction in
Force Board where all members of targeted year groups were equally
considered, which would have come closer to retaining the best officers,
the Army leadership at the time chose a different tack.  Among its amazing
decisions for the reduction in force was placing Year Group (YG) 78 and
half of YG 79 in the reduction in force zone of consideration – obviously
making it impossible to retain the best of YG 79 – and then further
reducing the zone's size by adding some special time-in-service constraints
that eliminated otherwise eligible members of the year groups from
consideration.

      c.  the above guidance and other special reduction in force guidance
helped contribute to a process that neither kept all the best officers nor
separated all those who were demonstrably less capable.

      d.  the Officer Evaluation System and the DA Form 67-8 OER (Officer
Evaluation Report) in effect at the time expected all senior raters to
establish and maintain a credible senior rater profile.  Many did not and
unlike today, faced no sanctions for failing to follow pretty easy
instructions.  Although those commissioned with him understood the
concept that they were responsible for everything they did or failed to
do, it was not right for them to be held responsible and left holding the
bag for their senior raters who failed to do their job.  But it happened.
 The result was the Reduction in Force Board illogically accepting OERs
as credible and valid from senior raters whose own lack of credibility
was clearly demonstrated by their profile numbers placed on the OER.

      e.  after the Reduction in Force Board results were released, he
alleges he called infantry branch and was told that he had three OER where
the two senior raters involved had made good narrative comments but had
established and gotten away with a top block, center of mass.  In all three
cases, he was placed in the second marked box, which automatically became a
below center of mass rating.  The assignment officer also said that the
only way to correct this and be reinstated was to successfully appeal the
OERs.  The applicant took him at his word and decided to appeal the three
OERs.  He also decided to appeal his last active duty OER after his senior
rater who actually had a credible profile and who had placed him in a
battalion command-grooming job before the Reduction in Force Board results
were released, marked him, allegedly, below the center of mass solely as a
result of his selection for involuntary separation.

      f.  of the four OERs that he appealed to the Officer Special Review
Board (OSRB) at PERSCOM [now the US Army Human Resources Command], he won
three (those OERs with end dates of 15 June 1985, 23 May 1986, and 19 June
1992).  The changes made to each OER was in the senior rater profile
portion, which was all that he had contested.  In the fourth appeal, of the
OER having an end date of 1 May 1987, the OSRB, he states, clearly agreed
with his case, but inexplicably failed to take the next logical step and
correct the OER.  The applicant alleges that he has since been repeatedly
told by officers who have served in various incarnations of what is now the
Human Resources Command that they never heard of anyone with as many
successful OER appeals who did not return to active duty.  The applicant's
contention that the OSRB clearly agreed with his case, but inexplicably
failed to take the next logical step and correct the OER is not correct.
The applicant appealed this OER at the same time he appealed the OER for
the period 850616 through 860523.  The OER with an end date of 15 June 1985
was changed.  The senior rater profile was removed from this OER.  The
appeal of the OER with the end date of 1 May 1987 was denied.

      g.  the ABCMR said it used his appeal packet and his record to
adjudicate his case but the Board's conclusions and recommendations are
inconsistent with an actual review of his record.  As a serving Army
Reserve Soldier, his record is current and available.  If the Board members
had actually looked at it, they would have seen that the results of the
three successfully appealed OERs had been integrated into his record.  In
addition, had they looked, Board members would have seen that all his
senior raters had marked him in the top block in part VIIb of his DA Form
67-9 OERs which mandate credible senior rater profiles.

      h.  the three successful appeals reflected a lot of work and he was
appalled that the ABCMR missed two of the OERs.  Luckily, other Army boards
have been more attentive.  He states he has no doubt that his corrected OER
and overall record have since directly contributed to his selection twice
for promotion (to lieutenant colonel and colonel) and twice for command
(battalion and brigade), as well as for resident attendance at the Army War
College.
      i.  given his record of successful appeals, as well as the removal of
other earlier offending board guidance as a result of the Selective Early
Retirement Board-based Christian lawsuit, he fully expected that the ABCMR
would reinstate him as a Regular Army officer.  In reading its decision, he
is disappointed at the falsehoods - whether intentional or unknowing - it
contained, as well as the ridiculous assertions it made.  Despite advice to
the contrary, he decided to give the Army leadership another chance to get
this right.

3.  The applicant submitted a copy of the front page of the three
successfully appealed OERs, including the two allegedly missed by the ABCMR
when he states, it "reviewed my records" as part of the appeal (his request
for reconsideration).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized, in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
ABCMR in Docket Number AC94-09431 on 1 February 1995 and in Docket Number
AR2003089544 on 12 February 2004.  The applicant has also submitted
several other requests for reconsideration, which were administratively
closed.

2.  In the above referred to requests for reconsideration, the applicant
requested, [through his appointed counsel at the time] reconsideration of
his 1993 request that he be restored to active duty with constructive
credit for time in service, time in grade, and referral to a Standby Review
Board for consideration for promotion to Regular Army lieutenant colonel
(LTC).  This request for reconsideration was made after he successfully
appealed, in his counsel's words, "two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs),
with non-credible senior rater (SR) profiles, after his separation from the
Army."

3.  When the Board considered the applicant's case in February 2004, the
OER that the applicant had successfully appealed contained the following
senior rater profiles and senior rater comments:

      a.  In the OER with an end date of 15 June 1985, while serving in the
grade of captain, the applicant was rated in the duty position of Assistant
S4.
The numbers shown in the senior rater profile were as follows, from top to
bottom.  The asterisk indicates where in the senior rater's profile the
applicant was marked.

           1.)  9 / 0 / *1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0


           2.)  The Senior Rater's comments are as follows:  "[The
applicant] has done an outstanding job in the activation of this newly
formed Ranger Battalion's Logistics Operation.  He has played a key role in
what is fast becoming a model maintenance program.  He did an excellent job
in the planning, coordination, and execution of two major deployment
exercises including one to Panama.  He ran a flawless Report of Survey
Program.  He is a superb action officer.  He works with little guidance and
knows to push a project through to completion with high standards.  [The
applicant] deserves much of the credit for the excellent logistics support
that all of our companies receive.  He should attend CGSC and be reassigned
to an Infantry Battalion.  He has excellent potential for battalion
command, and his schooling and assignments should reflect this
performance…He has excellent potential for Battalion Command…"

(This OER was successfully appealed to the OSRB on 9 September 1992.  The
applicant requested the SR potential evaluation be changed from a 3-block
to a 1-block rating.  On 5 November 1992 the Officer Special Review Board
(OSRB) deleted the SR profile of this OER altogether.  The senior rater
comments were left unchanged.)

           3.)  Without benefit of a senior rater profile on the OER for
the period ending 15 June 1985, the applicant may be at a disadvantage if a
reviewer focuses on the absence of a SR profile alone.  Comments made about
the applicant are positive and reflect excellence.  These comments would in
all probability be identified with comments normally reserved for above the
center of mass officers.

           4.)  Phrases such as, ". . . .has done an outstanding job . . .
has played a key role . . . . did an excellent job in the planning,
coordination, and execution of two major deployment exercises including one
to Panama . . . . ran a flawless Report of Survey Program . . . . is a
superb action officer are extremely positive and a credit to the applicant.

           5.)  Comments such as "He should attend CGSC and be reassigned
to an Infantry Battalion.  He has excellent potential for battalion
command, and his schooling and assignments should reflect this
performance…He has excellent potential for Battalion Command" are
indicative of above center of mass officers considering that he was rated
as a captain.

      b.  In the OER with an end date of 23 May 1986, while serving in the
grade of captain, the applicant was rated in the duty position of Brigade
HHC [Headquarters and Headquarters Company] Commander.  The numbers shown
in the senior rater profile were as follows, from top to bottom.  The
asterisk indicates where in the senior rater's profile the applicant was
marked.

           1.)  2 / *1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0


           2.)  The Senior Rater's comments are as follows:  "This is my
sixth report since I restarted my senior rater profile using a 1-5 spread.


[The applicant] is off to an impressive start as the commander of a brigade
HHC in a newly activated light infantry brigade.  He has made considerable
progress in the garrison operations and while too soon to tell how his
present training program will pay off during sustained combined arms
deployment, I am confident he is on track.  His maturity and willingness
to lead by example signal outstanding potential for increased
responsibility in command or staff assignments.  A must for CGSC [Command
and General Staff College] followed by an assignment as an infantry
battalion S3."

(On 9 September 1992, after the Reduction in Force Board had considered
this OER, the applicant appealed it, requesting the SR potential evaluation
be changed from a 2-block to a 1-block rating.  The SR supported amending
this OER, and on 5 November 1992 the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB)
deleted the SR profile of this OER altogether.  The senior rater comments
were left unchanged.)

           3.)  Even though the SR profile was deleted from the OER with an
end date of 23 May 1986, a critical assessment of the OER is that it is a
center of mass OER at best.  Key words in the text reveal this and perhaps
that the report was written with a good deal of caution.


           4.)  The evaluation, "[The applicant] is off to an impressive
start as the commander of a brigade HHC in a newly activated light infantry
brigade" signals that the SR is impressed with what he has seen thus far
but is taking a wait and see attitude to determine the applicant's total
level of success in the assignment.

           5.)  At this point in the rating process, the SR was confident
the applicant was, "on track."

           6.)  The comment about the applicant's "maturity and willingness
to lead by example signal outstanding potential for increased
responsibility in command or staff assignments" was positive; but officers
are supposed to act
mature and lead by example.  Signaling outstanding potential gives one the
perception that the potential has not yet been unleashed.  Overall comments
made by the SR could be considered to be center of mass.

      c.  In the OER with an end date of 1 May 1987, while serving in the
grade of captain, the applicant was rated in the duty position of Brigade
HHC Commander.  This was the second OER senior rated by the same senior
rater who had rendered the evaluation report with an end date of 23 May
1986.  The numbers shown in the senior rater profile were as follows, from
top to bottom.  The asterisk indicates where in the senior rater's profile
the applicant was marked.

           1.)  8 / *5 / 4 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0

           2.)  The Senior Rater's comments are as follows:  "[The
applicant] continued a solid performance as the commander of a brigade HHC
during its train-up to short notice deployment readiness.  Concur with the
rater's assessment of performance.  [The applicant] has done a first rate
job in the toughest company command in the brigade.  The unit has been
tested during several major brigade level off post deployments and is fully
mission capable.  An excellent planner who has consistently maintained high
standards for himself and his Soldiers.  [The applicant] has demonstrated
outstanding potential for increased command and staff responsibility.
Select for early promotion and CGSC."

(As indicated in the Record of Proceedings in February 2004, the applicant
appealed this OER to the OSRB.  The applicant appealed the OER requesting
the SR potential evaluation be changed from a 2-block to a 1-block rating.
 The SR informed the OSRB he felt comfortable with the evaluation as
completed and on 5 November 1992 the OSRB denied his request to amend this
OER.  On 13 June 1993, the applicant applied to this Board for the same
relief.  The Board denied his request on 1 February 1995.  The OER
remained unchanged.)

           3.)  The applicant contends that the OSRB had, "clearly agreed"
with him but inexplicably failed to take the next logical step and correct
the OER. The OSRB considered the applicant's appeal on 9 September 1992 and
again on 19 October 1993 when he submitted a first addendum to a case
summary of his appeal dated 21 October 1992.  In both instances, the OSRB
ruled there was not sufficiently convincing evidence that the contested OER
was inaccurate; therefore, the report should not be amended and denied the
appeal.

      d.  The applicant was provided a complete the record OER with an end
date of 3 January 1992.  This OER was processed into his official military
personnel files on 23 April 1992.  The numbers shown in the senior rater
profile are as follows, from top to bottom.  The asterisk indicates where
in the senior rater's profile the applicant was marked.

           1.)  16 / *31 / 12 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0

            2.)  The Senior Rater's comments are as follow, "[The
applicant] has done an outstanding job as Executive Officer of the
Psychological Operations Dissemination Battalion.  His success at managing
and coordinating the activities of the most complex battalion in the Group
demonstrates well his leadership capability and potential.  He is highly
adaptable and will do well in the most challenging assignments.  Recommend
for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel and selection for battalion command."

(The same officer served as the senior rater for this evaluation report as
served as the senior rater in the OER with an end date of 19 June 1992.)

      e.  In the OER with an end date of 19 June 1992, while serving in the
grade of major, the applicant was rated in the duty position of Battalion
Executive Officer.  The numbers shown in the senior rater profile are as
follows, from top to bottom.  The asterisk indicates where in the senior
rater's profile the applicant was marked.

           1.)  28 / 43 / *22 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0


           2.)  The Senior Rater's comments are as follow, "[the applicant]
has been a superb Executive Officer for the largest and most complex
battalion in the 4th Group.  His impact was direct and extremely positive
on the administrative, logistic, and operational…readiness of his
battalion.  [The applicant] has great potential for further service in
positions of higher responsibility.  Recommend this officer for promotion,
professional education, and command ahead of his contemporaries.  Give him
the hard jobs.  He will succeed at them all."

(The applicant appealed this OER, his last active duty OER after his
senior rater who actually had a credible profile and who had placed him
in a battalion command-grooming job before the Reduction in Force Board
results were released allegedly marked him below the center of mass
solely as a result of his selection for involuntary separation.  This OER
was successfully appealed.  The senior rater's block mark was raised from
the 3rd to the 2nd block.  This move raised him from "below the center of
mass" to the "center of mass."  It is worthy of mentioning that
this OER was not considered in the decision by the FY92 Reduction in
Force Board that convened on 16 March 1992 and identified him for
involuntary release from active duty in the rank of major on 29 September
1992.)

4.  At the time the applicant's case was considered by the Board in
February 2004, the Board had only one successfully appealed OER in its
possession for review.  The Board rendered its decision on the evidence
that was submitted for its consideration by the applicant and his counsel.

5.  Item 7 of the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (Docket Number AR2003089544)
states, "Counsel provides supporting evidence as listed on the attached
Exhibit List."  The Exhibit List names fifteen items submitted for the
Board's consideration.  Item 4 of the Exhibit List lists the following:
"Applicant's OER/AERs from 1978 – 1992 (38 pages)."

6.  Each of the OERs and AERs the applicant and counsel submitted were
exact copies of what was received and processed at Headquarters, Department
of the Army.  None of the OERs had been altered to reflect a change.  The
copies of the OERs that were submitted to the Board by the applicant and
counsel can be easily identified.  They were stamped with a bold number in
the lower margin.  Both the front and the back of each OER was stamped.

7.  In that application to the Board, counsel and applicant alleged to have
successfully appealed two OERs.  The analyst identified only one OER that
was successfully appealed and changed.  This OER had an end date of 23 May
1986. This OER was successfully appealed to the OSRB on 9 September 1992.

8.  As already discussed in the Record of Proceedings, the applicant
requested that his 2-block rating on the OER for the period ending 23 May
1986 (in a SR profile of 2 / *1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0) be changed to
a 1-block rating.  The applicant's SR provided support for this request,
and based on that support, the OSRB deleted the SR profile.

9.  In the Record of Proceedings, dated February 2004, the Board indicated,
that even if the applicant's request had been granted as he had requested
the SR profile would only have given him a center of mass rating.  An
assessment was made that the narrative rating given equated only to a
center of mass narrative rating.

10.  A review of the applicant's OER history up to his final active duty
OER reveals that the Reduction in Force Board considered fourteen OERs.  Of
these fourteen OERs, one was written on DA Form 67-7 (Officer Evaluation
Report).  He received a score of 196 of 200 possible points.  The applicant
then received five above the center of mass OERs, six center of mass OERs,
and three below center of mass OERs.  With changes made to the successfully
appealed OERs with end dates of 15 June 1985 and 23 May 1986, one OER, the
one with an end date of 15 June 1985, clearly contained language typical of
a center of mass OER.  The OER with an end date of 23 May 1986 contained
language typically found in above the center of mass OER.  These changes
would alter the statistics but only by one OER moving from center of mass
to above the center of mass.  The OER with an end date of June 1992, which
formerly had been a below center of mass OER became a center of mass OER;
but, it was not included in this equation with the fourteen OERs considered
by the Reduction in Force Board.

11.  The issue of the Army's decisions pertinent to the downsizing at the
time of the applicant's identification for and separation, to place Year
Group (YG) 78 and half of YG 79 in the reduction in force zone of
consideration, has been discussed in detail not only in the case considered
by the Board on 12 February 2004 but in letters addressed to the applicant
by the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Military Personnel Management and Equal
Opportunity Policy) and the Acting Director, Board for the Correction of
Military Records, in September 1996.  As he was notified, the bulk of the
downsizing efforts were accomplished through reduced accessions, voluntary
separations, and increased early retirements.  These actions fell short of
the Army's forced reduction goals, forcing the Army to undertake
involuntary reductions within the Army to achieve its required end
strength.

12.  It is true, the Army deviated from normal zone of consideration
procedures to conduct the FY92 Major Reduction in Force Board, but it did
use normal selection board procedures.  In addition to considering year
group 1978 officers, the zone of consideration was expanded to incorporate
a significant portion of year group 1979 (about 800) officers.  By
expanding the zone of consideration, the chance for being selected for
involuntary separation was reduced, not increased, for those in year group
1978.

13.  Because of the sensitivity of the issue and the termination of so many
careers, the Army took extraordinary measures to ensure the guidance given
by the Secretary of the Army was adhered to.  The Reduction in Force board
reviewed all officers in the zone of consideration, within the announced
dates of rank, with fewer than 15 years of active service, as of 30
September 1992, whose names were not on a promotion list, who were not
eligible for retirement, who were not within 2 years of retirement
eligibility, and who did not have an
approved separation in FY92.  The Reduction in Force Board, contrary to the
applicant's assertions, in its determination, recommended involuntary
separation of those officers not considered best qualified for retention on
active duty.

14.  The applicant's allegation, "that he has been repeatedly told by
officers who have served in various incarnations of what is now the Human
Resources Command that they never heard of anyone with as many successful
OER appeals who did not return to active duty" was not supported with
appropriate evidence (memorandums, statements or letters).  It might also
be mentioned that successful OER appeals come in a variety of forms –
administrative appeals; substantive appeals; and, an appealing officer can
request a variety of changes.  Appeals can be as simple as changing a score
or a mark on an OER to the total removal of an entire section of an OER to
removal of the entire OER altogether.  The appealing officer determines the
focus of the appeal.  In this case, the applicant chose to appeal the
senior rater's profile and the block check that had been given him.  The
applicant's sources appear to have spoken in general terms and it is
apparent they did not know the exact extent of the applicant's situation at
the time of their conversation.  The applicant has tried to capitalize on
these generalizations and has applied them to his present request, out of
context.

15.  The applicant stated that as a serving Army Reserve Soldier, his
record is current and available.  If Board members had actually looked at
it, they would have seen that the results of the three successfully
appealed OERs had been integrated into his record.

16.  Army Regulation 15-135, Paragraph 2-2.c. states that the ABCMR will
decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.
Paragraph 2-9 provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case
with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the
burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence
and presenting to the Board the best available evidenced to support his
argument and position.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By expanding the zone of consideration, the chance for being selected
for involuntary separation was reduced, not increased, for those in year
group 1978 as asserted by the applicant.

2.  The applicant appealed four OERs (with end dates:  15 June 1985, 23 May
1986, 1 May 1987 and 19 June 1992).  He was successful in his appeal of
OERs with end dates of 15 June 1985, 23 May 1986 and 19 June 1992.

3.  The senior rater profile was removed from the OERs with end dates of 15
June 1985 and 23 May 1986.  The senior rater comments remained without
change.

4.  The applicant's contention that the OSRB had, "clearly agreed" with him
on appeal of the OER with an end date of 1 May 1987 but inexplicably failed
to take the next logical step and correct the OER is not substantiated by
the evidence.  The applicant submitted an appeal on 9 September 1992 of
this OER and he again appealed the OER on 19 October 1993.  In both
instances, the OSRB ruled that the applicant had not provided sufficiently
convincing evidence that the OER was inaccurate; therefore, the report
should not be amended.

5.  In the OER with an end date 19 June 1992, which was not considered by
the Reduction in Force Board in its decision to involuntarily separate the
applicant, the senior rater's block mark was moved from a three block to a
two block, in effect changing the OER from a below center of mass OER to a
center of mass OER.  This OER has had an effect on the applicant's career
since his selection for involuntary release from active duty but did not
have an effect or influence on his selection for reduction in force
separation.

6.  When the Reduction in Force Board convened, it considered fourteen of
the applicant's OERs.  Of these fourteen OERs, the applicant was rated
above the center of mass by his senior raters five times, he was rated as a
center of mass officer six times, and below the center of mass three times.

7.  Had the OERs been appealed before the Reduction in Force Board convened
and had the results of the appeal of the three OERs been considered by the
Reduction in Force Board, they would have seen the same basic OER but of
the fourteen, six OERs could conceivably have been viewed as above the
center of mass, five in center of mass, and three below the center of mass.


8.  The OER with an end date of June 1992 which formerly had been a below
center of mass OER became a center of mass OER; but it was not included in
the above equation with the fourteen OERs considered by the Reduction in
Force Board since at the time the board convened, it had not yet been
written and processed to the applicant's official military personnel file.
This OER had no effect on his selection for involuntary separation from
active duty but it has influenced personnel management decisions since the
change was made.

9.  The applicant's allegation, "that he has been repeatedly told by
officers who have served in various incarnations of what is now the Human
Resources Command that they never heard of anyone with as many successful
OER appeals who did not return to active duty" was not supported with
appropriate evidence (memorandums, statements or letters).  It appears
these comments were made in general terms and it further appears that those
officers did not know the nuances of the applicant's situation at the time
of their conversation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JTM ___  __RGS__  __MBL __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2003089544 dated 12 February 2004.




                                  ______John T. Meixell_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005553                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |20030212                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051201                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]