RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      12 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005554


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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, that he be granted a waiver for
the remainder of the overpayment of pay and allowances he received in the
amount of $7,052.32.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

      a.  he entered active duty on 4 January 2004 as a First Lieutenant.
During the first four months of his service, he did not have the ability to
verify his LES.  In April 2004, a member of the officer basic course cadre
informed his class that certain students could be receiving overpayment and
that all students should verify their earnings.

      b.  he completed his officer basic course and first reviewed his LES
in April 2004.  At this time he learned his base pay was incorrect and he
was being overpaid.  He reported the overpayment to finance officials at
Fort Lee. Virginia.  Finance officials at Fort Lee assured him the pay
discrepancy would be corrected within the next several months.


      c.  in September 2004 [several months after his initial discovery of
overpayment in base pay] he noticed $1,867.50 had been deducted from his
base pay.  He called finance officials at Fort Lee and they verified that
the amount taken in his September LES satisfied his debt to the Government.
 Fort Lee finance officials also stated at the time the situation was
resolved and any future pay would be correct.  He did not know he would
continue to receive an overpayment in base pay through July 2005.

      d.  during the period January 2004 through August 2004 he received
overpayments ranging from $675.00 to $813.30 per month.  During the time,
his pay date and years of service on his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES)
were incorrect.

      e.  during the period October 2004 through January 2005, he received
overpayments ranging from $417.60 to $1,923.35 per month.  The pay date and
years of service on his LES were incorrect.  From October 2004 through
January 2005, he checked his LES only a few times to verify his leave
balance.  He did not check the years of service or his base pay amount for
accuracy since Fort Lee finance officials had told him in September 2004
the error concerning his base pay had been corrected.
      f.  from February 2005 through April 2005, he checked his LES only a
few times to again verify his leave balance.  At this time he noticed his
pay date and his years of service shown on his LES had been corrected and
thought his base pay was also correct, for his number of months [length of
service], only to learn later he was still being overpaid base pay.  During
the period February 2005 through June 2005, he was overpaid $417.60 per
month.

      g.  he was unable to check his LES in May and June 2005 because he was
locked out of the MyPay website.

      h.  in July 2005, he received no base pay.  In July 2005 when he
learned of the erroneous overpayments in base pay, he immediately reported
the inaccuracy on his July 2005 LES.  In addition to inaccuracies in his
base pay, he reported a jump in accrued leave from 29.5 days in June 2005
to 107 days in July 2005.  Even though he reported the error in his leave
balance, he adds that [by the date of his application to the Board], the
leave balance had not yet been corrected.  The pay date and years of
service, he noted, shown on his LES were correct.

      i.  He states, in effect, during his first nineteen months his base
pay was incorrect.  He reported the overpayments to the appropriate
authorities and he has exhausted all administrative remedies and he now
requests that the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)
correct the error and injustice by waiving, in effect, remitting or
cancelling the remaining debt of $7,052.32.

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides those seventeen
enclosures listed on his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of
Military Record, and on the addendum to his DD Form 149.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant entered active duty as a US Army
Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp officer, in the rank of First
Lieutenant, on 4 January 2004.  He was promoted to Captain on 8 June 2004
and was appointed in the Regular Army, effective 11 November 2005, by US
Army Human Resources Command Orders 60-5-A-83, dated 11 November 2005.
The evidence shows the applicant is on active duty and is assigned to
duty at Fort Lee, Virginia.
2.  At the time of his entry on active duty, the applicant contends his
pay entry date was incorrectly established as 1 December 2000.  He states
he learned he was being overpaid and he reported the overpayments to the
appropriate authorities in April 2004.

3.  The applicant’s LES for the periods of service from 4 January through
31 July 2004 are not available for the Board's review.  The applicant
provided his LES for the periods August 2004 through September 2005, with
the exception of the LES for August 2005.  These LESs show the following
information and/or discrepancies:

      a.  The LES for the period 1-31 August 2004, shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2002 and he received $3,693.90 in
base pay.  The LES shows there were no deductions for his debt to the
Government.  All of the LESs the applicant provided show a pay grade/rank
of O3.

      b.  The LES for the period 1-30 September 2004 shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 8 June 2002 and he received $1,151.40 in base
pay.  A deduction of $146.83 was made towards collection of a debt to the
Government of $146.83.  A remark in the remarks section of the LES shows
the applicant's longevity was updated on 7 June 2004.

      c.  The LES for the period 1-31 October 2004 shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 8 June 2002 and he received $4,942.25 in base
pay.  There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.  A remark in the remarks section of the
LES repeated information already shown on the earlier September 2004 LES,
that the applicant's longevity had been updated on 7 June 2004.

      d.  The LES for the period 1-30 November 2004 shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 8 June 2002 and he received $3,422.40 in base
pay.  There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.

      e.  The LES for the period 1-31 December 2004 shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 8 June 2002 and he received $3,422.40 in base
pay.  There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.

      f.  The LES for the period 1-31 January 2005 shows he had 2 years
service, with a pay date of 8 June 2002 and received $3,542.10 in base pay.
 There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  An entry was made
in the "Remarks" section of the LES that stated, "Rate Change Basic Pay
050101 [1 January 2005]."  There is no evidence in the remarks section of
the LES to indicate a debt had been established against the applicant.

      g.  The LES for the period 1-28 February 2005 shows he had 1 year
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and received $3,542.10 in base
pay.  There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  An entry was
made in the "Remarks" section of the LES that stated, "Correct Pay Date
050201 [1 February 2005]."

      h.  The LES for the period 1-31 March 2005 shows he had 1 year
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and he received $3,542.10 in
base pay.  The "Remarks" section of the LES shows the applicant had
incurred a travel pay debt of $626.40.  The LES shows a deduction was made
for this travel pay debt in the amount of $626.40 bringing the balance of
this debt to $0.00.  There was no evidence a debt to the Government for
overpayment of basic pay had been established against the applicant.

      i.  The LES for the period 1-30 April 2005 shows he had 1 year
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and received $3,542.10 in base
pay.  There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.

      j.  The LES for the period 1-31 May 2005, shows he had 1 year service,
with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and he received $3,542.10 in base pay.
There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.

      k.  The LES for the period 1-30 June 2005 shows he had 1 year service,
with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and received $3,542.10 in base pay.
There were no deductions for a debt to the Government.  There is no
evidence in the remarks section of the LES to indicate a debt had been
established against the applicant.

      l.  The LES for the period 1-31 July 2005 shows he had 1 year
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and base pay for the month is
shown as -$2,111.45 and an advance debt was posted to his pay record in
the amount of $5,235.95.  In the remarks section of the LES, a notation
was made the applicant had an
indebtedness to the Government in the amount of $5,235.95.  A second
remark in the remarks section shows the indebtedness was suspended
on 12 July 2005.

      m.  The LES for the period 1-30 September 2005 shows he had 1 year
service, with a pay date of 4 January 2004 and base pay for the month is
shown as -$1,050.44 and an additional advance debt was posted to his pay
record in the amount of $4,174.94.  A remark was made in the remarks
section of the LES showing the applicant had an indebtedness to the
Government in the amount of $9,410.89.  A second remark in the remarks
section of the LES shows the indebtedness was suspended on 22 September
2005.

4.  The applicant provided a DA Form 2142, Pay Inquiry, dated 3 August
2005, which shows he requested an audit of his leave balance.  In the
course of the inquiry, the applicant stated he was experiencing a debt
problem.  The problem was identified as a "longevity debt" by the finance
representative who responded to his inquiry.

5.  On 3 August 2005 the applicant made a telephonic inquiry concerning
his debt to the Government for overpayment of base pay.  In the telephone
conversation he stated he knew what caused the debt but he was just
confused about the process.  He also questioned his leave balance on his
LES.  The finance representative responding to the call responded, "I do as
well."  The applicant then requested an audit of his leave.  The inquiry
evaluation was marked as, "valid."

6.  The summary of the base pay audit showed the following results:

      a.  during the period from January 2004 through September 2005, the
applicant was entitled to $61,937.15 in pay and received $61,937.15, plus
an overpayment in base pay of $9,410.89.

      b.  in January 2004, he was overpaid $731.97 in base pay.

      c.  in February, March, April, and May 2004, he was overpaid
$813.30 in base pay each month.

      d.  in June 2004 he was overpaid $707.27 in base pay.

      e.  in July and August 2004 he was overpaid $675.00 in base pay
each month.

      f.  in September 2004 he was underpaid $1,867.50 due to the debt
collection action.

      g.  in October 2004 he was again overpaid in base pay by $1,923.35.

      h.  In November and December 2004, he was overpaid $403.50 in base
pay each month.

      i.  in January, February, March, April, May, and June 2005, he was
overpaid $417.60 in base pay each month.

      j.  in July 2005, a debt of $5,235.95 was established against the
applicant.  His base pay shown on the audit summary is -$2,111.45.

      k.  in August 2005, the applicant was paid the correct amount,
$3,124.50.

      l.  in September 2005, an additional debt of $4,174.95 was
established against the applicant.  His base pay shown on the audit
summary is -$1,050.44.

7.  The applicant provided a copy of an Inspector General Report, with
Recommendation, prepared by the US Army Combined Arms Support Command and
Fort Lee, Office of the Inspector General, Fort Lee, Virginia, dated 27
October 2005.  This report states:

      a.  the applicant requested assistance from the Fort Lee Inspector
General's Office in order to correct errors with his LES and to gain access
to the MyPay Website.  Although he had tried numerous areas of redress, his
LES still continued to reflect incorrect data and he was locked out of the
website due to errors on the part of the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS).

      b.  The applicant did not have access to the website because DFAS had
mistakenly deleted him from access.  DFAS, in effect, told the IG's Office
there was no problem.  The applicant, they contended, could access his LES;
however, it wasn't until the IG's Office took a digital picture of the
screen he would receive when he attempted to access his record and sent it
to DFAS before DFAS believed there was a problem.  [It is noted by the
applicant's own testimony on his request for waiver of the remaining debt
to the Government; he was unable to access the MyPay in May and in June
2005.]
      c.  The applicant detailed documentary evidence between himself,
DFAS, and finance personnel channels attempting to correct his pay.  He was
promised his pay would be resolved only to have the base pay changed
repeatedly on subsequent LES.  These discrepancies were again reported to
finance and he was again told the pay issues would be resolved.

      d.  In July 2005, the applicant requested his finance record be
audited by DFAS; however, the IG found no evidence any action was taken
regarding his request.

      e.  The Inspector General's belief was the best interests of the
United States Army would be served if the Government's finance and
accounting office accepted responsibility for its mistakes and gross
negligence and resolve the applicant's pay issues by correcting his LES.
The applicant, the Inspector General stated, had an expectation of
reliability that all previous debts were collected in September 2004;
therefore, he had based his future financial transactions on that
information.  For DFAS to come forward a year later and state that he must
repay the overpayment was not only grievously unfair but showed complete
disregard for the welfare of the Soldier.  The Inspector General
recommended the Government waive the remainder of the debt.

8.  The applicant provided a copy of a Settlement Certificate prepared by
the Defense Legal Service Agency, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA), Arlington, Virginia, dated 16 January 2006, in response to a DOHA
Claim submitted by the DFAS-Denver Center, Denver, Colorado.  This
settlement certificate stated:

      a.  The DFAS-Denver had submitted the applicant's claim to them.  The
claim had risen from erroneous overpayment of basic pay incident to his
military service.  The applicant had requested a waiver of the claim and
the DFAS-Denver Center had recommended that a portion of the claim be
waived.

      b.  DOHA acknowledged that when the applicant entered active duty on
1 January 2004, his pay date was erroneously established as 1 December 2000
instead of 1 January 2004.

      c.  DOHA acknowledged the applicant's pay entry date was changed on
several occasions (April 2004, August 2004, and September 2004).  Despite
the changes to his pay date, DFAS had failed to adjust his basic pay.  As a
result, he was overpaid $9,410.89 from 1 January 2004 through 30 June 2005.
      d.  DOHA agreed the applicant had acted in good faith in accepting
the overpayments which occurred during the period 1 January 2004 through
31 March 2004 and that all conditions necessary for waiver of this portion
of the claim had been met.  DOHA waived $2,358.57 of the Government's claim
and denied waiver of the remaining $7,052.32.

      e.  DOHA denied waiver of the remaining $7,052.32 because they stated:

      f.  In April 2004, while attending his officer basic course, an
instructor made a general statement some members were being overpaid
because their pay entry date had been miscomputed.  The applicant reviewed
his LES and learned he was being overpaid.  He contacted the appropriate
officials and was advised his pay would be corrected.

      g.  They noted, in their review, that in April 2004 the applicant's
pay date had been changed from 1 December 2000 to 1 January 2004 and his
years of service were corrected to zero years; however, his pay did not
decrease and he continued to be overpaid basic pay each month through
June 2005.

      h.  They acknowledged that their review of his pay account showed that
in September 2004, $1,867.50 had been deducted from his pay and he again
contacted the appropriate officials and was advised that this deduction
satisfied the overpayment.

      i.  DOHA then stated that while the applicant may have been informed
his pay had been corrected, they noted his LES for January 2004 through 31
March 2004 showed his PED as December 2000 and that he was receiving base
pay for over three years military service.  They further noticed his base
pay in January 2004 was $3,079.35 and from February through March 2004 it
was $3,421.50.

      j.  DOHA then stated it was apparent to them that the applicant had
known as early as April 2004 that his pay was miscomputed.  Based on this
knowledge, they felt he should have requested an audit of his pay at that
time.  Had he done so, they stated, and presuming the error would have been
discovered at that time, further overpayments could have been prevented.
Since he had failed to request an audit, DOHA believed that collection of
the overpayment would not have been against equity and good conscience.

      k.  DFAS had failed to adjust the level of his pay which resulted in
his being overpaid $9,410.89 in base pay from 1 January 2004 through 30
June 2005.

      l.  In summarizing the issue, DOHA stated, the applicant's argument
was that the error had been made by the Government and, in effect, he
should therefore, be given a waiver of the remaining debt.

      m.  DOHA stated its long-held position was that the waiver statute
did not apply automatically to relieve the debts of all members who through
no fault of their own had received erroneous payments from the Government.
Waiver action under 10 U.S. Code 2774 was a matter of grace or dispensation
and not a matter of right that arises solely by virtue of an erroneous
payment being made by the Government.  If it were a matter of right, then
virtually all erroneous payments made by the Government to service members
would be excused from repayment.  The DOHA, in settlement of the claim,
waived $2,358.57 of the Government's claim and denied waiver of the
remaining $7,052.32.

20.  The evidence shows the applicant has exhausted all administrative
remedies available for him to resolve his remaining debt balance of
$7,052.32.

21.  Title 10, Section 2774, US Code provides authority for waiving claims
for erroneous payments of pay and allowances made to or on behalf of
members or former members of the uniformed services, if collection of the
claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best
interests of the United States.  Generally, these criteria are met by a
finding that the claim arose from an administrative error with no
indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or lack of good faith on the
part of the member or any other person having an interest in obtaining the
waiver.

22.  AR 37-104-4, Chapter 32, paragraph 32-6b, states that all applications
for waiver must show that the applicant did not know and could not
reasonably have known of the error; and, having knowledge of a probable
error, made inquiry to the proper authority and was informed that payment
was correct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A request for a waiver, or in effect, granting a cancellation of a debt
which results from an overpayment of pay and allowances can be made if
collection of the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not
in the best interests of the United States.  Generally, these criteria are
met by a finding that the claim arose from an administrative error with no
indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or lack of good faith on the
part of the member or any other person having an interest in obtaining the
waiver.

2.  AR 37-104-4, provides that applications for a debt waiver must show
that the Soldier did not and could not have reasonably known of the error
or, knowing of an error, made inquiry to the proper authority and was
informed that payment was incorrect.

3.  The evidence shows in April 2004 the applicant learned he was being
overpaid base pay and promptly brought the error to the attention of
finance officials.  He admits that he was informed the reason for
overpayment of base pay was an incorrectly established basic pay date.
He makes no admission he was ever told of the correct amount of base pay
to which he was entitled; however, it is not logical to believe that a
finance official did not tell him of the correct amount of his base pay.
How else could a determination have been made that he was being paid the
correct amount or was being overpaid?  When he brought his pay problem to
the attention of finance officials, they told him it would take
approximately four months to resolve the error.

4.  Several months later, the applicant noticed a large deduction had been
made from his base pay.  He sought verification from finance officials that
this was in fact a collection of the overpayment he had reported
approximately four months earlier.  He was assured the problem had been
resolved and his pay would be correct in the future.

5.  The LESs the applicant provided show corrections were made to his pay
account several times after he initially brought his pay problem to the
attention of finance officials.

6.  The applicant admits he only checked his LESs a few times from October
2004 to July 2005 in order to get leave balances for leaves and passes.
From October 2004 through January 2005, he acknowledged his LESs showed
his pay date and his years of service were incorrect.  When he verified
his available leave balance from February 2005 through April 2005, he
noted his pay date and his years of service had been corrected.  He
believed his base pay was correct for his number years of service.

7.  In January 2004 the applicant's base pay was $2,347.38.  In the period
from February through April 2004 his base pay was $2,608.20 per month.  In
June 2004 he was promoted to pay grade O-3 and he experienced a pay
increase.  In January 2005 he experienced another pay increase which
brought his base pay to $3,124.50.  It is not reasonable to believe he was
not the least bit curious
about the new level of his base pay with the passing of each of these
events.  It is also not credible to believe that he did not know he was
still receiving an overpayment in base pay.

8.  In July 2005 he received no base pay.  He learned later this was due to
a collection of erroneous overpayments of base pay that continued after he
was assured the problem had been corrected and he could expect the correct
amount of base pay in the future.

9.  The evidence shows the applicant sought the assistance of the IG's
Office when he could not get his pay issues resolved.  When he asked for
this assistance, the Inspector General stated he had detailed documentary
evidence between himself, DFAS, and finance personnel channels attempting
to correct his pay; however, the Inspector General's assessment of the
applicant's pay issue is written in generalities and provides no details
about whom he contacted, who they represented, how the contact was made,
and when the contact was made.

10.  The applicant complained that a part of the problem was his inability
to get into the MyPay website.  His efforts to continually monitor his pay
and entitlements on a monthly basis were hindered because DFAS had
erroneously deleted him from access to his MyPay account.  The evidence
shows he was unable to check his LES in May and June because he was locked
out of the MyPay website, and by the applicant's own admission, he was only
denied access to the MyPay website for only two months of the entire period
when his pay was not correct.

11.  The applicant made application to the DFAS for cancellation of the
debt that had accrued against his pay account.  The DFAS submitted his
claim to DOHA with a recommendation that a portion of his debt to the
Government be waived.

12.  DOHA waived $2,358.57 of the original $9,410.89 debt.  They noted the
applicant had made every good faith effort to correct mistakes made to his
pay by DFAS and had received the overpayment of pay in good faith; but only
from January through April 2004.  In the determination made by DOHA, an
admission was made that the error had not been originated by the applicant
but by finance representative; however, the applicant was faulted for not
having specifically asked for an audit of his pay account in April 2004.
They reasoned that it was apparent to them that the applicant had known as
early as April 2004 that his pay
was miscomputed.  Based on this knowledge, they felt he should have
requested an audit of his pay at that time.  Had he done so, they stated,
and presuming the error would have been discovered at that time, further
overpayments could have been prevented.  Since he had failed to request an
audit, DOHA believed that collection of the overpayment would not have been
against equity and good conscience.

13.  The evidence shows the applicant failed to exercise sufficient due
diligence concerning his pay to warrant relief.  He did exercise due
diligence when he sought a review of his pay by the Fort Lee finance office
in April 2004 for a potential overpayment; however, at the time, the
applicant had a duty to ascertain exactly what he should be earning.
Thereafter, it was his responsibility to take a look at his LES from time
to time to ensure that his actual pay was consistent with his authorized
pay.  Instead, he assumed things were or would be corrected and ended his
inquiry.

14.  The applicant's discussion with the Fort Lee finance office in
September 2004 did not absolve overpayment from April 2004 through August
2004, or after September 2004.  Even though the Fort Lee finance office
told the applicant that the deductions from his pay satisfied his debt, he
did not have a good faith basis for relying upon that representation.  Had
he read his LESs from April 2004 to September 2004 and determined his
actual authorized pay, he would have realized that he continued to be
overpaid.

15.  The applicant did not act reasonably when he failed to check his
actual pay on his LESs after September 2004 to ensure his pay was proper.
He had a duty as a Soldier and as an officer to ensure that the errors in
his pay were in fact corrected.  While inexcusable, DFAS’ continued errors
do not excuse the applicant from his debt.  These errors did not transfer
the applicants own duty to act reasonably to DFAS and forever absolve him
of debt, especially when the applicant could have discovered the continued
overpayments through a cursory examination of his LES and a minimal amount
of research.

16.  The applicant states that collection of the remaining overpayment
will cause him financial hardship; however, legally, the applicant is not
entitled to relief.  The only basis for granting relief then is a matter
of equity.  In this regard, the applicant does not come before the Board
with clean hands.  Ultimately, he had a duty to know what he was entitled
to earn and then set aside any overpayments
until DFAS finally corrected his pay.  Here, the applicant operated out
of deliberate ignorance or negligence in failing, in the first place, to
determine his true pay entitlement.  Under these circumstances, he should
not be rewarded for DFAS' mistakes.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LD__    __EM___  __r_____  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  ____LaVerne M. Douglas_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005554                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070612                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.0000                                |
|2.                      |128.1000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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