RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009549


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard Hassell               |     |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 previous
requests for award of the Soldier’s Medal and that he be medically retired.

2.  The applicant states, in a 16 August 2004 letter to his former
commanding general, that he is, in effect, dissatisfied with the action of
this Board.

3.  The applicant asks that his former commanding general (hereinafter
referred to as General L) do two things:

      a.  that he (General L) submit a letter stating that he (General L)
gave “the order for my Soldier’s Medal and for whatever reason, that order
was not carried out” and the he “re-nominate me for the Soldier’s Medal so
this old wrong can be corrected.”


      b.  that General L request that the applicant’s file be “re-opened and
reviewed” so that he can be given a “fair hearing and retired with back
pay….”


4.  The applicant in his letter discusses x-rays and a copy of a radiology
report from Martin Army Hospital, which he indicated he had in his
possession.  He states that the x-rays were removed from his medical
records folder and put into his x-ray folder without his consent and then
subsequently vanished so he went before the Medical Board at Fort Gordon,
Georgian “with no evidence to support [his] claim for injuries.”  He argues
that the radiology report and the x-rays show his “third lumbar vertebra
was broken and they knew or should have known it.”  He states that he was
including a copy of the radiology report as enclosure one to his
correspondence.  However, there was no enclosure one included with the
correspondence, which was ultimately provided to the Board, via the Army’s
Congressional Liaison Office and which served as the basis for this
reconsideration action.  The enclosures begin with number 3.

5.  The applicant also refers to an “initial answer” from this Board in
which he states that the x-rays from Martin Army Hospital were mailed back
to him, noting that they were “inadmissible.”  He notes that he enclosed
the Board’s “initial answer” as enclosure number 2 and that the finding
that his “back was broken before [he] came on active duty” was an amazing
conclusion.  Enclosure number 2 was also not included with the documents
which served as the basis for the reconsideration action.

6.  In reference to his request for award of the Soldier’s Medal, the
applicant points out discrepancies in the Board’s original findings and
information contained in his supporting statements.  He notes that the
Board ignored the statement by Command Sergeant Major (CSM) DH, saying that
he (the Command Sergeant Major) did not mention “the wreck.”  The applicant
notes that the Command Sergeant Major indicated in his statement that he
“had full knowledge of the situation and referred them to Sergeant [W’s]
statement.”

7.  The applicant notes that the Board states he “would have been entitled
to the Soldier’s Medal if [he] had been in the Horse Trailer” and points
out that Sergeant W stated “at least eight or ten times” that he (the
applicant) was in the trailer.  He cites the award citation for the Army
Commendation Medal as further evidence that he was in the trailer and asks
“Doesn’t anyone up there know how to read or proof read?”

8.  The applicant argues that his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) states
that he was in the trailer directing the rescue of his horses and men and
that while “this of course is the truth” it “directly counters the stated
reason for reduction of [his] Soldier’s Medal to an ARCOM in their letter.”

9.  In addition to the applicant’s 16 August 2004 letter, there were copies
of three eyewitness statements, a copy of the Board’s 18 August 2003 letter
informing the applicant that his application (AR2003084242) had been
denied, a copy of the Board’s 31 July 2003 Memorandum of Consideration
(AR2003084242), and a copy of a 27 August 2004 letter from General L to
Major General Kathryn Frost, former Adjutant General of the Army,
recommending the applicant for an award of the Soldier’s Medal.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in a 30 March 2005 letter to the Secretary of the
Army, that the applicant be medically retired.

2.  Counsel states that the handling of the applicant’s case has been
“grossly unfair.”  He relates various incidents in which the applicant’s
back was injured, including parachute malfunction while carrying 160 pounds
of combat equipment in “November 1979/January 1980,” vehicular accidents in
1980 while a platoon leader at Fort Hood, Texas in the fall of 1980, the
June/July 1982 vehicle accident when the van the applicant was riding in
was hit from behind by a tractor and trailer pulling horses, and the March
1983 incident when he was unpacking his household good, sneezed and “hear
the bone in his back snap….”

3.  Counsel also cites that September 1985 radiology report from Martin
Army Hospital which “vanished” from the applicant’s medical records before
he was sent to the Army Medical Board at Fort Gordon and which was “found
years later” as justification that the applicant should have been medically
retired.  Counsel contends that “had that report been seen by the U.S. Army
Medical Board” the applicant “would have been retired instead of
discharged.”

4.  Counsel states that the October 2000 letter from the Board are “typical
of how he’s been treated by the U.S. Army.”  He states that the last two
paragraphs contradict each other.  He states that in the next to last
paragraph the letter says the applicant’s “tomogram reports of July 1983
read as ‘Essentially Normal’ whatever that means” and that “either his back
was normal or it wasn’t.”  Counsel states that in fact his back was not
normal.  He states that the last paragraph indicates that it was the
Board’s “considered opinion” that the applicant’s back was broken before
“the applicant’s entry onto active duty and not solely the result of the
claimed injury of March 1983.”  He notes there is no mention of the tractor-
trailer wreck or the line of duty investigation that was conducted.  He
also argues that there was “no mention at all, ever, that the Army notes
this on any physical examination during entrance on active duty or later.”

5.  Counsel goes on to note that the applicant was injured a number of
times while on active duty, that his sinuses were crushed when an aircraft
descended, and that he has undergoing three sinus surgeries since 1994.  He
maintains that the applicant back was broken while on active duty and that
the fracture was not discovered until 1996 when the applicant “was
beginning to go down hill fast because of his broken back.”  He notes that
the Department of Veterans Affairs has granted him a 100 percent disability
rating, and that in February 2000 he had his first spinal surgery.

6.  Counsel states that the applicant’s “injury to his spine could have
been repaired back in 1983” but instead the applicant was “given an
Honorable Medical Discharge for “Lower Back Pain.”  He states that the
applicant was “promised six medals by senior Field Grade and General
Officers for heroism and outstanding performance of his duties and received
only one while on active duty.”

7.  Counsel provides a copy of the 1985 radiology report from Martin Army
Community Hospital and a copy of a 21 August 2001 letter from an
orthopaedic spine surgeon to President Bush.





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
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2000045484 on
3 May 2001 pertaining to the applicant’s request for disability retirement.

2.  Also incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2003084242 on 31 July 2003 pertaining to the applicant’s request for
award of the Soldier’s Medal.

3.  The applicant’s 16 August 2004 letter to General L apparently prompted
the general to send his 27 August 2004 letter to General Frost, including
the letter authored by the applicant and his enclosure.  General L also
sent a copy of that correspondence to a member of congress who in turn, on
13 September 2004, forwarded the documents to General Frost.  On 27
September 2004 the Congressional Coordinator, Congressional Inquiry
Division responded to the congressional representative and provided the
Board with copies of the correspondence between the applicant, General L,
and General Frost.  Based on the issues raised by the applicant in his 16
August 2004 letter to General L it was felt that the Board could best
address those issues by opening both issues, award of the Soldier’s Medal
and retirement by reason of physical disability, as a reconsideration.

4.  The Board’s 3 May 2001 Memorandum of Consideration, regarding the
applicant’s request to be medically retired, notes that the applicant was
evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board, by an informal Physical Evaluation
Board, and appeared before a formal Physical Evaluation Board.  It also
noted that the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of
the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  However, at no time during those
proceedings did the applicant make any of the arguments he now makes to the
Board regarding when and how he broke his back, that medical documents were
purposely misplaced, or that he questioned the validity of the 20 percent
disability rating the informal Physical Evaluation Board rendered for his
back condition.

5.  The 3 May 2001 Board noted that during the formal Physical Evaluation
Board the applicant did not contest the 20 percent rating for chronic low
back pain, “but contended that the chronic neck pain and sinusitis were not
stable as indicated in the MEB diagnoses.”

6.  The 21 August 2001 letter from the orthopaedic spine surgeon to
President Bush, included with counsel’s March 2005 letter to the Board,
notes that the applicant’s “primary condition involves a fracture of his
third lumbar vertebra called spondylolysis.”  The surgeon states that the
applicant was “in a serious tractor-trailer accident and the following
year, was lifting a heavy boxes, sneezed at the same time and had extremely
severe low back pain which has persisted to this day.”  He noted that he
was discharged with the diagnosis of chronic low back pain with no specific
diagnosis, however, “he clearly did have a specific diagnosis for his low
back pain.”  The surgeon states that the “condition of L3 spondylolysis is
due to a traumatic injury and, according to [the applicant’s] history, was
clearly exacerbated by the numerous traumatic events he experienced in the
military which he has been able to specifically list in other records.”

7.  The 6 September 1985 radiographic report, noted in the Board’s 2001
proceedings, stated “spondylolysis at L3 level noted which needs further
evaluation with oblique tomography.”  The 23 September 1985 radiology
report, which the applicant and counsel argue was removed from the
applicant’s files, states that:

      the right pars articularis shows a clean defect with no evidence of
      abnormal sclerosis.  Possibility of this being a congenital defect may
      be considered.  The inferior articular process of the L1 vertebre on
      the right side shows a separate fragment with cortical margin.  This
      may represent a unfused apophyses or a non-united old fracture.


      The left pars articularis defect with marked degree of sclerotic
      changes suggestive of abnormal movements or stress at this sight.
      Small loose fragment of bone noted close to the intervertebral
      foramins at the degenerative changes seen as the pars interarticularis
      defect on the left side.


8.  The December 1985 MEB narrative summary concluded the applicant
suffered from “chronic low back pain, secondary to chronic muscle spasm
which may be due to his lumber spondylolysis and SI joint arthritis.”  The
evaluating physician noted that he had followed the applicant for “the past
2 ½ years for low back pain and more recently neck pain which followed a
motor vehicle accident.”

9.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the
MEB.



10.  During the applicant’s formal Physical Evaluation Board his counsel, a
civilian attorney from Columbus, Georgia, stated “we’re not contesting the
20% rating that was granted for the muscle spasms.  We’re merely attempting
to show to the board that the other two ailments are not in the stable
condition they were purported to be by the records that appeared before
this board.”

11.  Information from the American Medical Association notes that
Spondylolysis is a stress fracture or defect of the pars interarticularis
in a vertebra.  A stress fracture can occur at the pars interarticularis
due to repetitive movements of extension and rotation which leads to an
increase in shear forces in the lumbar spine.  As shear forces increase,
pressures on the facet joints increase.  These forces are then transmitted
to the pars interarticularis.  Since the pars interarticularis is small, it
is unable to absorb repetitive shock which leads to the stress fracture.
Spondylolysis has various causes.  While a vertebra can be defective from
birth (congenital), it can also be broken by trauma or a stress fracture,
or broken down by infection or disease.  Signs and symptoms may include,
insidious onset, pain with hyperextension, initially pain only with sports,
then may increase to pain with activities of daily living and progressing
to pain which interferes with sleep, relative tightness of the hamstring
muscles, aching lower back, usually unilateral which can be localized along
the belt line, and/or no nerve root pain (no burning/shooting pain down the
leg).
12.  The MEB narrative summary noted that “shortly after the accident he
had no manifestation of an incapacitating problem but in the past many
months has had constant dull aching….  His pain and limited ability to
perform the usual soldierly duties have progressed to the point where he
cannot fulfill his job description….”

13.  The applicant was ultimately discharged by reason of physical
disability with entitlement to disability severance pay.  The formal PEB
granted him a 20 percent disability rating utilizing VASRD (Department of
Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities) code 5295.

14.  The VASRD notes that code 5285 (vertebra, fracture of, residuals) will
be used when there is cord involvement, bedridden, or requiring long leg
braces, or without cord involvement, and/or abnormal mobility requiring
neck brace.  In all other cases the VASRD states that cases should be rated
in accordance with definite limited motion or muscle spasm.  VASRD code
5295 is the code associated with lumbosacral strain.

15.  Although the counsel notes that the applicant has been granted a 100
percent disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs, there were
no documents available to the Board which confirmed that information.
16.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However,
an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the
Army rating.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an
individual for interruption of a military career after it has been
determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies
him or her from further military service.  The VA, which has neither the
authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for
military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that
it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect
the individual’s civilian employability.  Accordingly, it is not unusual
for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies,
to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.
Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his
or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that
agency’s examinations and findings.  The Army rates only conditions
determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus
compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any
service connected impairment, including those that are detected after
discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian
employability.

17.  Regarding the applicant’s request that he be awarded the Soldier’s
Medal vice the Army Commendation Medal for his action on 24 May 1981.
Including with his original application to the Board concerning that issue,
the applicant included three statements:

      a.  statement one, dated 28 February 2003, from Sergeant W regarding
a vehicle accident occurring in “late June / early July of 1982….”

      b.  statement two, a sworn, undated, statement from Sergeant W
regarding the 24 May 1981 accident, which served as the basis for the
applicant’s recommendation for award of the Soldier’s Medal; and

      c.  statement three, an undated statement from CSM DH, also regarding
the 24 May 1981 accident.

18.  The Board’s 31 July 2003 Memorandum of Consideration does appear to
have confused the three statements and incorporated information from
statement one (28 February 2003 statement from Sergeant W) into its
deliberation of the applicant’s request for award of the Soldier’s Medal
when that statement had no bearing on the incident for which the applicant
maintains he should have received the Soldier’s Medal.  Confusion of the
three statements is noted in the “applicant’s states” portion of the 31
July 2003 proceedings and in its conclusions.

19.  The sworn statement from Sergeant W, identified above as statement
number two, notes that on 24 May 1981 a tractor trailer carrying eight
horses was attempting a turn when the shoulder of the road gave way and the
“tires went down in a muddy ditch, tipping the trailer over and knocking
many of the horses off their feet.”  Sergeant W noted that he, the author
of the statement and others “slowly lowered the ramp to get into the
trailer” while the applicant “directed the bobtail driver to take up the
slack on the ropes and help upright the trailer.”  He noted that when the
door slowly came open, he (Sergeant W) and two other Soldiers “got in
first.”  He stated that “we [Sergeant W and the other two Soldiers] began
to try to calm the horses, and it was very scary.”  The applicant
ultimately ordered the driver to stay with the rig “while he [the
applicant] climbed inside to help.”  He noted that the applicant “climbed
into the trailer and up above the stalls. He balanced up above the horses,
talking to us and calming them and the soldiers.  He quickly outlined the
plan to get all the horses and men out alive.”

20.  Sergeant W stated that the applicant asked the veterinarian “to
administer sedatives to several of the thrashing horses.  [The
veterinarian] did just that, and as the horses calmed down, [the applicant]
issued commands directing which horses should be removed first.”  He noted
that the applicant “moved around inside the top of the trailer where he
could see the situation better.  He almost fell a couple of times, and if
he had he would have been killed or seriously injured.”  He noted “without
regard for his own safety [the applicant] held himself up over the sharp
edges of the stall and helped us get Jenny [one of the horses] back on her
feet.”  He stated that he (Sergeant W] and another Soldier “freed her foot,
and with [the applicant’s] help got her upright.”  He noted that “at great
personal risk, [the applicant] climbed to the rear of the trailer and freed
up Jayro’s [another horse] halter and helped us get him back on his feet.
Together we went from stall to stall freeing the tangled horses and
evacuating them from the trailer.”

21.  Sergeant W concluded that “with total disregard for his own safety he
somehow managed to coordinate the complete evacuation of all horses and
personal from the trailer with only minimal injuries to both.”  He stated
that thirteen members of the Horse Platoon received medals for their part
in the rescue that date and that the applicant was told “he was going to
get a Soldier’s Medal for his part, but it never happened.”

22.  The statement from CSM DH, referred to as statement number three
above, as indicated in the Board’s 31 July 2003 Memorandum of
Consideration, did not provide any additional information regarding the 24
May 1981 incident.  Rather, CSM DH merely noted “after the platoon prepared
fro the trip-loading horses and equipment-and was on its way, there was a
terrible accident (see SGT [W’s] statement), which I clearly remember.”  He
noted that the applicant’s leadership, guidance, and action brought the
situation under control and that “his decisions were prompt and accurate,
and resulted in an outstanding outcome of what could have been a tragedy.”

23.  In General L’s 27 August 2004 letter to General Frost he noted that
the applicant “with disregard for his own safety, immediately took charge
of the rescue, called for medical help; and positioned himself in a
position of personal danger inside the trailer to calm, release, and direct
extraction of the hysterical and injured horses.”  He noted that during the
evacuation process the applicant “and several troopers assisting him were
injured and needed some medical attention after the rescue.”

24.  In May 2003 the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation
for award of the Soldier’s Medal and concluded that “the degree of action
and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for award,
recommending instead an award of the Army Commendation Medal for
meritorious achievement.”

25.  It appears that the continued confusion concerning information contain
in Sergeant W’s statement regarding the 1982 vehicle accident and the May
1981 incident regarding the overturned horse trailer resulted in the
Board’s 31 July 2003 comment that “there is no evidence that the
applicant’s actions involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary
risk of life.  Such evidence would be, for example, that he went into the
van with the panicked horses to save a Soldier who was trapped and wounded
by the horses.”  Ultimately, the 31 July 2003 Board concluded that the
actions of the Army Decorations Board was appropriate.

26.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that Soldier’s Medal may be awarded to
individuals who distinguished himself or herself by heroism not involving
actual conflict with an enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as
for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have
involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under
conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.  Awards will not be
made solely on the basis for having save a life.

27.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 notes that the Distinguished Flying Cross is
awarded for heroism and extraordinary achievement while participating in
aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by
voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary
achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and
outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his or her comrades
or from other persons in similar circumstances.

28.  That same regulation notes that for an individual to have
“distinguished himself or herself must, by praiseworthy accomplishment, be
set apart from other persons in the same or similar circumstances.
Determination of their distinction requires careful consideration of
exactly what is or was expected as the ordinary, routine, or customary
behavior and accomplishment for individuals of like rank and experience for
the circumstances involved.”

29.  It states that “above and beyond the call of duty” is the “exercise of
a voluntary course of action the omission of which would not justly subject
the individual to censure for failure in the performance of duty.”  It
usually includes the acceptance of existing danger or extraordinary
responsibilities with praiseworthy fortitude and exemplary courage.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The arguments made in the applicant’s original application to the
Board, in his rebuttal to the 10 October 2000 advisory opinion from the
Board’s medical advisor, and in his current correspondence, are identical
in that he essentially believes that had certain records been available,
been interpreted correctly, and all of the incidents contributing to his
back been taken into consideration, the result would have been his
retirement by reason of physical disability.

2.  However, the evidence available to the Board during its initial
deliberation and now, clearly shows that the applicant actively
participated in his disability processing, concurred with the findings and
recommendation of the MEB, and that while he argued that other conditions
had not stabilized he did not disagree with the informal PEB disability
recommendation regarding his back pain.

3.  The applicant’s argument that “they knew or should have known” that his
third lumbar vertebra was broken and that as such, he should have received
different treatment or that it warranted disability retirement rather than
separation, is inconsistent with the evidence which was available during
his disability processing and which was available to the Board in 2001.
That evidence clearly shows the consistent use of the diagnostic term of
spondylolysis.

4.  The evidence shows that the applicant was rated utilizing VASRD code
5295, which was the most appropriate code considering the applicant’s
limitations.

5.  The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is not limited
by the requirements of Army Regulation 635-40, may have rated those same
conditions at a higher rate, does not necessarily demonstrate any error or
injustice in the Army rating.  The Department of Veterans Affairs,
operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability
ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by that department does not
compel the Army to modify its rating.

6.  The evidence available to the Board, with regard to the recommendation
for award of the Soldier’s Medal, indicates that Army Decorations Board
processed the recommendation to conclusion.  There is no evidence or any
error or injustice in the processing of the recommendation.

7.  While the Board apologizes for the confusion regarding information
contained in the 31 July 2003 Memorandum of Consideration, the fact remains
that an award of the Army Commendation Medal in lieu of the Soldier’s Medal
was an appropriate conclusion.

8.  The information in Sergeant W’s statement (statement number one) notes
that the applicant, and several other individuals were inside the horse
trailer, attempting to calm and remove the horses.  Those individuals all
received an award of the Army Commendation Medal.  The applicant, and his
supporters appear to argue that the applicant should have received the
Soldier’s Medal because he was not only in the trailer, but also because of
his leadership he oversaw and directed the evacuation.  While certainly
noteworthy, as evidenced by his award of the Army Commendation Medal, his
actions did not raise to the level required for award of the Distinguished
Flying Cross, the determining factor in whether an individual’s actions
warrant an award of the Soldier’s Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PS __  __YM ___  __LH____  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 AR AR2000045484 on 3 May 2001
pertaining to the applicant’s request disability retirement or in Docket
Number AR2003084242 on 31 July 2003 pertaining to the applicant’s request
for award of the Soldier’s Medal.




                                  _______Paul Smith________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009549                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |108.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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