RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003737


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted S. Kanamine               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests:

     a.  the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period
               14 September 1995 through 12 April 1996 be expunged from her
records or Part VIIA of this OER be blacked out;

     b.  the applicant's OER for the period 21 October 2002 through 17
April 2003 be expunged from her records;

     c.  the applicant be brought back on active duty and retroactively
promoted to major in the Regular Army or the Active Guard Reserve (AGR)
with a date of rank similar to Year Group 91 due-course, primary zone
majors (approximately    1 June 2002);

     d.  the applicant be given active duty back pay and allowances for the
period  17 February 1999 to the current date, accounting for the extra year
she would have been receiving major's pay and allowances;

     e.  the applicant be given active duty retirement credit from 17
February 1999 to the current date;

     f.  the applicant be sent to the resident Command and General Staff
College or given credit for attending the resident course; and

     g.  that no documents be filed to "specify" time gaps for the OER for
the period 21 October 2002 through 17 April 2003.

2.  Counsel states the applicant was nonselected for U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) major by her first USAR major promotion board, which was a "best-
qualified" board, and she was also nonselected by a special selection board
(SSB) under this same criteria.  She was promoted on her second look by a
promotion board which was "fully-qualified."  During these boards, her OER
for the period ending 12 April 1996 was present, and her OER for the period
ending 17 April 2003 was not present.  So the reason she was not selected
would logically seem to be because of the presence of the OER for the
period ending 12 April 1996 as the rest of her file was good and even
outstanding.

3.  Counsel states that, when the applicant's senior rater (SR) gave her
the OER for the period ending 12 April 1996, she asked him what his SR
profile was when he gave her a 2-block rating.  He responded and said that,
although many commanders (of which she was one) receive 1-block ratings,
staff officers do not necessarily receive 1-block ratings.  Thus, he did
not answer her question directly but by every inference he implied a 2-
block rating was OK.  She had earlier made allegations against the SR.
When she found out the 2-block rating was a below center of mass rating,
she strongly felt she had been reprised against for bringing up issues of
impropriety by her chain of command.

4.  Counsel states the applicant relooked the OER later and realized, in
addition to having a below center of mass rating, it was a referred report.
 Several military and civilian sector lawyers and even numerous adjutant
general personnel failed to catch the fact the report was improperly
referred.  She found the OER did not meet the regulatory requirements for a
referred report.  When she reported that to the U. S. Army Reserve
Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) appeals section, they graciously and quickly
removed the referral memorandum.

5.  Counsel states the OER for the period ending 12 April 1996 contains
absolutely nothing facially which would suggest it was derogatory.  Part
VIIa shows a 2-block rating.  There is nothing inherently negative about a
2-block rating.  The SR himself noted in the referral letter that "There
are no derogatory comments or ratings contained in this report."  It was
reasonable for her to neither comment nor seek a commander's inquiry as
there was nothing obvious to comment or inquire about.

6.  Counsel states what the applicant did not know was the 2-block rating
placed her below center of mass and also in the bottom 10 percent of those
rated.  Not only did the SR fail to advise her of this fact, he also
overtly misrepresented to her the 2–block was not below center of mass.  It
was not until September 1996 when she saw her microfiche and first came to
realize the 2-block rating was so grossly negative and below center of
mass.  The regulation at the time required the SR to note in Part VIIb why
the rated officer fell in the bottom 10 percent of rated officers or, for
that matter, fell below center of mass.  The SR failed to do so and so
failed to comply with the regulation.

7.  Counsel states, regarding the applicant's OER for the period ending 17
April 2003, her SR purports to be Doctor K___.  The records show the
purported OER rating officials were not the rating officials.

8.  Counsel states the applicant was ordered to active duty on 18 October
2002 using Department of the Army G-2 intelligence funds to perform
intelligence training.  Her job entailed no such training, she is not a
military intelligence officer, and she never received any military
intelligence training.  Five weeks after coming on active duty there was an
attempt to improperly remove her from her tour by reducing her active duty
time to 50 days.  On or about 10 December 2002, after being reinstated, she
was literally sent home, without orders, directing her to work from her
home and without the proper tools to complete her tasks.  Evidence strongly
suggests she immediately went from being categorized as an excellent worker
during her first five weeks to being unexpectedly removed the very duty day
after she told her then-rater she was going to the Inspector General (IG)
about various issues with the rater and his Agency.  That is reprisal.

9.  Counsel states when the applicant came on active duty her rater was Mr.
P___ and her SR was Doctor R___, both civilians.  However, she was never
given the appropriate rater and SR support forms until December 2002.  She
then signed her support form on 13 January 2003, in the presence of Mr.
P___, Doctor T___, and Doctor K___.  Mr. P___ then back-dated her support
form to    4 November 2002.  She was not at Fort Leavenworth, KS on 4
November 2002, and Mr. P___ lied about the date he conducted an initial
counseling and the date he received her support form.

10.  Counsel states Doctor T___ retired on 31 January 2003, and on 18
February 2003 Doctor K___ informed the applicant he became her SR.  On 21
January 2003, Doctor. K___ had informed her that her sole future assignment
was to engage in the preparation of her rebuttal to the recommendation for
involuntary release from ADT (active duty for training).  Her purported
rater only served as the rater for just over a month [since she had been
sent home on 10 December 2002 and she had almost no contact with him].  The
purported SR never served in that capacity.  Additionally, the fact both
rating officials mentioned a negative personnel action they initiated, the
involuntary release from active duty, which had not seen its way to
completion, was flatly against the regulation.

11.  Counsel provides the applicant's OER for the period ending 12 April
1996 with her SR's referral letter and her acknowledgement of receipt; her
Officer Record Brief; OERs for the periods ending 23 June 1992, 23 June
1993, 31 May 1994, 9 November 1994, and 14 September 1995; her 3 June 1997
appeal of the 12 April 1996 OER with supporting statements; U. S. Army
Human Resource Command's (USAHRC's) response to her 3 June 1997 appeal (1st
endorsement dated 17 July 1997 and memorandum dated 23 July 1997); and her
27 March 1998 request for reconsideration of her appeal and USAHRC's
response (1st endorsement dated 11 June 1998 and memorandum dated 16 June
1998).

12.  Counsel also provides the ABCMR's letter dated 22 August 2003
administratively closing the applicant's 8 April 2003 request for
consideration; a letter dated 13 October 2004 from the former Military
Police Officer manager for captains; an email dated 16 September 2003; her
notification of nonselection for promotion dated 16 July 2002; her
notification of nonselection for promotion (SSB) dated 22 March 2004; and
her OER for the period ending 17 April 2003 with referral letter and her
rebuttal.

13.  Counsel also provides the applicant's 30 June 2003 appeal of her OER
for the period ending 17 April 2003 and USAHRC – St. Louis's (USAHRC –
STL's) response dated 10 September 2003; her 15 November 2003 request for
reconsideration of her appeal and USAHRC – STL's and the Special Review
Board's (SRB's) responses (dated 10 December 2003, 14 January 2004, and
4 February 2004); her ADT orders dated 18 October 2002 with amendments
dated  25 November 2002 and 9 December 2002; her DA Form 67-9-1 (OER
Support Form); an email dated 18 February 2003; and an email dated
      21 January 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned a Military Police second lieutenant out
of West Point and entered active duty on 1 June 1991.  She was promoted to
captain on 1 June 1995.

2.  The first contested OER is a 7-rated month change of duty report for
the period 15 September 1995 through 12 April 1996 during which the
applicant's principal duty title was Detachment Commander.  While neither
the rater nor the SR made superlative comments, no derogatory comments were
made.  Her SR commented in part that she finished her detachment command
tour in "satisfactory fashion."  He commented she should be sent to the
Advanced Course immediately with a follow on assignment to a battalion or
brigade staff to further enhance her potential.  The SR rated her potential
in the 2d block with an SR profile of 27/2/0/0/0/0/0/0/0.

3.  The applicant's SR referred the OER to her, stating, "While there are
no derogatory comments or ratings contained in this report, in my opinion
the nature of the report demands that, out of fairness, you be given an
opportunity to comment on the report itself."  The applicant acknowledged
receipt of the OER and indicated she did not desire to add any comments or
to request a commander's inquiry or appeal.

4.  The applicant appealed the OER on 3 June 1997.  She contended her SR
told her a 2-block rating was not below center of mass for all officers.
She contended the regulation states, "Anything unusual about the report
will also be noted here…" and the block check was derogatory and did not
correspond to the comments but was not explained by the SR.  She also
requested the referral memorandum and her response be removed.  On 17 July
1997, the SRB returned her appeal without action as she did not provide
clear and convincing evidence it was inaccurate or unjust.  On 27 March
1998, she requested reconsideration.  Her request was again returned
without action.

5.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 17 February 1999 in
the rank of captain.  (Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty) erroneously indicates she completed 11 years, 7 months,
and        17 days of net active service.)

6.  Effective 18 February 1999, the applicant was appointed a Military
Police captain in the USAR.

7.  By memorandum dated 16 July 2002, the applicant was notified she had
been considered but not selected for promotion to major by the Army Reserve
Components Mandatory Selection Board that convened on 4 March 2002.

8.  Orders dated 18 October 2002 ordered the applicant to ADT for a period
of 179 days with a reporting date of 21 October 2002.  She was to report to
"FMSO, 101 Meade Ave. Ft Leavenworth KS 66027" for the purpose of "O31G FRA
INSCOM."

9.  By a memorandum dated 2 November 2002, Subject:  Letter of Instruction
for (applicant), the applicant was informed Mr. P___ would be her rater and
Doctor T___ would be her SR.  She was also informed that by the end of her
tour Doctor T___ would no longer be the SR but it would probably be Doctor
K___.

10.  Orders dated 25 November 2002 amended the applicant's 18 October 2002
orders to read for a period of 50 days.  Orders dated 9 December 2002
further amended the orders to restore the 179 day period.

11.  The applicant provided an email dated 21 January 2003 from Doctor K___
who informed the applicant "your future assignment is to engage in the
preparation of your rebutal (sic) to the recommendation for involuntarily
(sic) early release from ADT."

12.  The applicant provided an email dated 18 February 2003 from Doctor
K___ informing her Doctor T___ officially retired effective 31 January 2003
and he, Doctor K___, was her SR.

13.  The second contested OER is a 6-rated month release from ADT report
for the period 21 October 2002 through 17 April 2003.  Part IV (ARMY
VALUES), Subpart IVa5. (RESPECT:  Provides dignity, consideration, fairness
& EO) is checked "no."  Part IVb (LEADER ATTRIBUTES/SKILLS/ACTIONS),
Subpart IVb1.3. EMOTIONAL), IVb2.2. (COMMUNICATING), and Subpart IVb3.2.
(DECISION-MAKING) are also checked "no."

14.  In Part Va, the applicant's rater rated her performance and potential
for promotion as "unsatisfactory performance, do not promote."  Three
favorable comments concerning her duty performance were made (i.e., she
satisfactorily completed all assigned tasks, she received praise from some
organization members for a product she was responsible for, and she
successfully recruited and re-established contacts with former organization
members).  The rest of the comments were adverse, including the comments,
"These actions caused the supervisory chain of command to initiate a
recommendation for early release from the ADT tour of duty.  Bureaucratic
and legal delays and compassionate efforts for (the applicant's) benefit
allowed her tour of duty to run its course without early release."

15.  In Part Vc (unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value
to the Army), the applicant's rater commented, "Skilled in Microsoft office
applications; financial management and tax planning.  Would serve Army best
in OFCF/31."  (Financial management and tax planning were not listed as
performance objectives or significant contributions on her support form.)

16.  In Part VIIa, the SR (Doctor K___) rated her promotion potential as
"Do not promote."  In Part VIIb, the SR rated her overall potential as
"below center of mass, retain."  Three favorable comments were made.  The
rest of the comments were adverse including, "The supervisory chain of
command initiated a recommendation for early release from her ADT tour of
duty."  The SR referred the OER to her for comment or rebuttal.

17.  The applicant rebutted that the Department of Defense IG (DODIG) was
currently conducting an inquiry into actions taken against her during her
ADT tour which ended with the contested OER, contending the OER was a
culminating retaliatory act for bringing up issues of gender
discrimination, poor security management practices, and other issues.  She
contended the OER referred to actions or investigations not completed in
contradiction to regulatory guidance; that it discussed skills about which
her rating officials had no requisite knowledge (i.e, financial management
and tax planning skills), referred to counseling that did not take place,
and discussed alleged behavior they never witnessed.

18.  On 30 June 2003, the applicant appealed the second contested OER.  On
  10 September 2003, her appeal was returned without action.  The AR-
PERSCOM informed her the SRB conducted a preliminary review of her appeal.
She had provided numerous copies of emails concerning her and/or the rating
chain, in addition to other documents, and her opinions and interpretations
of the emails.  The SRB noted the emails indicated successful duty
performance at times (especially early on); however, the contested OER was
for the entire rating period and therefore might not reflect the
performance/potential demonstrated during specific times within the rated
period. The SRB noted the applicant mentioned Equal Opportunity and IG
investigations in her appeal package.  The official findings or approved
recommendations of those investigations could serve as evidence to support
the applicant's contentions.  However, [as she did not provide those
findings or recommendations] she did not provide sufficient evidence of a
clear and convincing nature for the SRB to consider at that time.

19.  On 15 November 2003, the applicant requested reconsideration of her
appeal.  She noted the second contested OER was greatly affecting and
deterring her attempts to go to the resident Command and General Staff
Course and to regain entrance into the Active Army.  She could not wait for
the outcome of the DODIG investigation before submitting the appeal.  She
provided additional evidence.  She provided telephone records she contended
showed she had no contact with her rater after 11 December 2002.  (She
annotated the telephone records to indicate Mr. P___'s name or Doctor K__'s
name by the appropriate telephone number.)  She contended her raters
referred to their trying to involuntarily remove her from her tour.  As
that action was never processed to completion, it was contrary to
regulation to mention it.

20.  The applicant further contended her rater knowingly and falsely
requested ADT monies for her tour when he had no intention of employing her
in an ADT capacity.  She contended her raters made wholly inappropriate and
un-informed comments.  She contended she was never counseled.  Finally, she
contended her SR's boss would not allow them to give her additional tasks
after they recommended an involuntary release from active duty action.

21.  By memorandum dated 4 February 2004, the USAHRC - STL (formerly    AR-
PERSCOM) informed her the SRB again determined she did not provide
substantive evidence of a clear and convincing manner and again returned
the request for appeal without action.

22.  By memorandum dated 22 March 2004, the applicant was notified she had
been considered by an SSB under 2002 criteria but was not selected for
promotion.  It cannot be determined why promotion reconsideration was
granted.

23.  On 21 September 2005, the Department of the Army IG (DAIG) informed
the Board analyst all issues of the applicant's request(s) for action from
the DODIG are still ongoing.

24.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System),
paragraph 4-16d(2) of the version in effect at the time of the applicant's
12 April 1996 OER, stated the SR would also note anything unusual about the
report in Part VIIb.  Examples given were the inability or refusal of the
rated officer to complete a DA Form 67-8-1 (OER Support Form); rated
officer's signature out of sequence; changes in an evaluation resulting
from rated officer's comments; multiple referrals to the rated officer; and
similar events.)

25.  Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 4-27h of the version in effect at
the time of the applicant's 12 April 1996 OER, stated a report would be
referred to the rated officer by the SR for acknowledgment and comment if,
in the opinion of the SR, it contained ratings or comments that were so
derogatory the report could have an adverse impact on the rated officer's
career.

26.  Army Regulation 623-105, of the version currently in effect and in
effect at the time of the applicant's 17 April 2003 OER, paragraph 3-27
states no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation concerning
an officer.  References will be made only to actions or investigations that
have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken
before submitting the OER.

27.  Army Regulation 623-105 of the version currently in effect, paragraph
        3-20b(3)(a) states the rater will provide narrative comments
indicating any unique skills/expertise which the rated officer possesses.
The rater should focus on identifying any ability of special value to the
Army which may not be evidenced in other areas of an officer's personnel
file.

28.  Army Regulation 623-105 of the version currently in effect, paragraph
2-18b states that, normally, to be eligible for an evaluation report a
rated officer must complete 90 calendar days in the same position under the
same rater.  Paragraph 2-14b(1) states, to evaluate the rated officer, the
SR must normally serve in that capacity for a minimum of 60 calendar days.


29.  Army Regulation 623-105 of the version currently in effect, Table 3-3,
code 12A notes that relief from ADT is a reason for submitting an OER.

30.  Army Regulation 623-105, both the version in effect at the time of the
applicant's first contested OER and at the time of her second contested
OER, state an OER accepted for inclusion in the official record of an
officer is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared
by the proper rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and
objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  The
burden of proof in appealing an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly,
to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant must produce
evidence that clearly and convincingly nullifies the presumption of
regularity.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and
compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative
error or factual inaccuracy.  Both versions also state the failure to
comply with any or all support form requirements will not constitute the
sole grounds for appeal of an OER.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There appears to be no error or injustice in regards to the applicant's
first contested OER.

2.  Counsel contended the applicant's SR implied a 2-block rating was OK.
However, he stated, when the applicant asked him what his SR profile was
and he responded by saying that, although many commanders (of which she was
one) receive 1-block ratings, staff officers do not necessarily receive 1-
block ratings.  Contrary to the applicant's contention, her SR in effect
told her that, since she was a commander but he did not give her a 1-block
rating, her 2-block was not OK.

3.  Contrary to counsel's contention the SR himself noted in the referral
letter, "There are no derogatory comments or ratings contained in this
report," the SR actually stated, "While there are no derogatory comments or
ratings contained in this report, in my opinion the nature of the report
demands that, out of fairness, you be given an opportunity to comment on
the report itself."  His referral was entirely within regulatory guidance
that stated a report would be referred to the rated officer by the SR for
acknowledgment and comment if, in the opinion of the SR, it contained
ratings or comments that were so derogatory the report might have an
adverse impact on the rated officer's career.

4.  The regulation at the time did not require the SR to note in Part VIIb
why a rated officer fell in the bottom 10 percent of rated officers or
below center of mass.  No obviously derogatory comments were made in the
first contested OER.  However, her SR commented in part that she finished
her detachment command tour "only" in a "satisfactory fashion."  He
recommended follow-on assignments in staff, rather than command positions.
These comments were consistent with the 2-block rating and thus the rating
was not unusual.

5.  There appear to be some errors in regard to the applicant's OER for the
period ending 17 April 2003.

6.  Rater comments in Part Vb included, "These actions caused the
supervisory chain of command to initiate a recommendation for early release
from the ADT tour of duty.  Bureaucratic and legal delays and compassionate
efforts for (the applicant's) benefit allowed her tour of duty to run its
course without early release."  SR comments in Part VIIc included, "The
supervisory chain of command initiated a recommendation for early release
from her ADT tour of duty."  As the rater noted, all these comments refer
to a derogatory action that was completed favorably for the applicant
(i.e., she was not released early from ADT).  Therefore, it appears these
three comments should be deleted from the OER.

7.  The applicant had noted in the rebuttal of the 17 April 2003 OER the
rater had commented in Part Vc, "Skilled in Microsoft office applications;
financial management and tax planning.  Would serve Army best in OFCF/31"
but the rater had no requisite knowledge of these skills.  It is noted that
financial management and tax planning were not listed as performance
objectives or significant contributions on her support form.  This portion
of the OER appears to warrant correction; however, as the applicant did not
specifically request the Board correct this portion of the second contested
OER this particular issue will not be further addressed.

8.  Counsel contended the applicant's rating officials violated regulatory
guidance concerning support form requirements.  Failure to comply with any
or all support form requirements will not constitute the sole grounds for
appeal of an OER.

9.  Counsel contended the rating officials on the applicant's second
contested OER were not actually her rating officials.  The contention was
based in part on the applicant's statement that, after 10 December 2002,
she was sent home     and had no further contact with her rater, Mr. P___.
It is also noted that, on       18 February 2003, Doctor K___ informed her
he became her SR.  However, on 21 January 2003 Doctor K___ had informed the
applicant her sole future assignment was to engage in the preparation of
her rebuttal to the recommendation for involuntary release from ADT.

10.  Counsel's contentions have been carefully considered.  However, the
evidence provided to support these contentions consisted almost entirely of
the applicant's own statements and her annotations on emails.

11.  If the applicant could provide evidence to substantiate Mr. P___ no
longer acted as her rater after 10 December 2002 (less than 90 days after
he became her rater), it appears the entire OER would be invalid.

12.  If the applicant could provide evidence to substantiate she no longer
performed duties after 21 January 2003, it appears at least the ending date
of the OER and the reason for submission could be changed.  The 21 January
2003 email from Doctor K___ is insufficient evidence on which to show the
applicant no longer performed duties after that date.  It is noted her
rating officials' attempt to shorten her ADT tour was overruled; there is
no evidence to show Doctor K___'s 21 January 2003 guidance was not also
overruled.

13.  The applicant has a DODIG complaint pending.  The findings of the
DODIG/DAIG may or may not substantiate her contentions.  However, the
applicant's present application to this Board provides insufficient
evidence on which to grant the full relief requested.  The partial relief
granted is insufficient to warrant promotion reconsideration.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__tsk____  __phm__  _cak____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by:

     a.  deleting the comments, "These actions caused the supervisory chain
of command to initiate a recommendation for early release from the ADT tour
of duty.  Bureaucratic and legal delays and compassionate efforts for (the
applicant's) benefit allowed her tour of duty to run its course without
early release." from Part Vb of the OER for the period ending 17 April
2003; and

     b.  deleting the comment, "The supervisory chain of command initiated
a recommendation for early release from her ADT tour of duty." from Part
VIIc of the OER for the period ending 17 April 2003.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application as pertains to
expunging her OER for the period ending 12 April 1996 from her records or
blacking out Part VIIA of this OER; expunging her OER for the period ending
17 April 2003 from her records; reinstating her on active duty and
retroactively promoting her to major in the Regular Army or the AGR with a
date of rank similar to Year Group 91 due-course, primary zone majors
(approximately 1 June 2002); paying her active duty back pay and allowances
for the period 17 February 1999 to the current date, accounting for the
extra year she would have been receiving major's pay and allowances; giving
her active duty retirement credit from 17 February 1999 to the current
date; sending her to the resident Command and General Staff College or
giving her credit for attending the resident course; or filing no documents
to "specify" time gaps for the OER for the period 21 October 2002 through
17 April 2003.




                                  __Ted S. Kanamine_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003737                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051013                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |111.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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