IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	16 September 2008  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010178 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests his records be corrected by:

	a.  removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR); 

	b.  lifting of a "permanent" flag (DD Form 268 – Report to Suspend Favorable personnel Actions);

	c.  reinstatement of his Bronze Star Medal and Special Forces Tab; and

	d.  an NCOER (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report) be rendered that reflects his "true accomplishments."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that what happened to him was unfair and unjust because he made every possible attempt to repair and report the problem to his chain of command, but his chain of command failed to cooperate and assist him to correct the matter.  He points out:

	a.  He personally appointed Soldiers based on experience and maturity to serve as Pay Agent (PA) and Field Ordering Officer (FOO) for the Operational Fund (OPFUND) while in pre-deployment training, but his choices were not accepted;

	b.  He informed his immediate superior of financial problems with the OPFUND, but he was ignored;

	c.  He investigated and attempted to check OPFUND records, but his efforts were rebuffed;

	d.  He did not take any "go-to-hell" money from the OPFUND; and

	e.  He was told in March 2006 that Pakistani pistols were being illegally purchased by team members and he reported this to US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) personnel.

3.  The applicant provides a compact disk (CD) containing all supporting documentation.  He also provides paper copies of all supporting documentation arranged in four binders entitled:

	a.  "Application for Correction of Military Records";

	b.  "AR 15-6 Investigation";

	c.  "Rebuttal Dated 08 April 2007 for Administrative Reprimand"; and

	d.  "Rebuttal Dated 26 October 2007 for Intent to Initiate Termination of CMF 18 Status and Removal of Special Forces Tab."

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests as stated by applicant.

2.  Counsel states as indicated by applicant.

3.  Counsel provides as stated by applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a master sergeant assigned to the US Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired Reserve).  Prior to his retirement, he was a member of the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) assigned to Company A, 2nd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Chicago, IL (CO A, 2D BN, 20th SFG (ABN)).

2.  In late 2005, the applicant's unit CO A, 2ND BN, 20th SFG (ABN), augmented by Soldiers from CO C, 2ND BN, 20th SFG (ABN), was order to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  The applicant was assigned as the Operations Sergeant (Team Sergeant) for Operational Detachment – Alpha 2046 (ODA-2046).  A captain from CO C, 2ND BN, 20th SFG (ABN) was appointed as Team Leader for ODA-2046.  An OD team is comprised of 12 Soldiers.

3.  During pre-deployment training, the applicant designated two NCOs to serve as Pay Agent (PA) and Field Ordering Officer (FOO).  When the CO C captain was appointed Team Leader, he cancelled the applicant's choices for PA and FOO and designated two other NCOs to those positions.  The Soldiers of ODA-2046 deployed to Afghanistan during the period 6 January 2006 through 3 September 2006.  The Team Leader's choices for PA and FOO were in place during the deployment.

4.  The ODA-2046 came under the operational control of the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force – Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A).  On 27 July 2006, the applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal for exceptional meritorious service while serving in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom from 15 January 2006 to 1 September 2006.

5.  On/about 6 August 2006, the Task Force J7 (Engineer) notified the applicant's unit that he was coming to the unit's base camp to conduct an inquiry into questionable construction projects and expenditures.  On the same date, the applicant sent a memorandum to the local Criminal Investigation Division (CID) unit alleging improprieties by the Team PA and FOO in the administration of the OPFUND.

6.  When the CJSOTF-A J7 arrived at the applicant's base camp on 7 August 2006, he found unauthorized construction projects being accomplished and questionable monetary expenditures.  Based on the J7's report and the applicant's 6 August 2006 CID memorandum, the CJSOTF-A Chief of Staff ordered an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation into allegations of OPFUND mismanagement within ODA-2046.  A Judge Advocate lieutenant colonel was assigned to investigate and a Finance Corps first lieutenant was directed to assist in the investigation as a subject matter expert.

7.  The AR 15-6 investigation was conducted during the period 13-30 August 2006.  At certain times during the investigation, CID agents were called in to conduct criminal searches.  As a result of the investigation, it was determined that:

	a.  With the exception of the applicant, each team member was distributed $500.00 in "go-to-hell money" for a total illegal expenditure of $5,500.00.  To cover this disbursement, false receipts for rations were created;

	b.  ODA-2046 improperly converted OPFUND assets to purchase unauthorized goods; and

	c.  Contraband items (weapons and munitions) were being hidden for later import to the United States.

8.  The investigation further determined that the Team Leader and the applicant lacked leadership and discipline and failed to exercise proper financial oversight of the OPFUND.  Furthermore, the Team Leader and the applicant were derelict in their duties, which lead to a total breakdown of discipline within the unit.

9.  The AR 15-6 investigating officer found that ODA-2046 was divided into two groups, one was comprised of younger Soldiers who were allied with the Team Leader; the other was comprised of more veteran Soldiers who were allied with the applicant as Team Sergeant.  The division was based upon the strong personal animus that existed between the two leaders.

10.  The AR 15-6 investigation revealed that the applicant and the Team Leader frequently countermanded each other's orders.  When the applicant appointed Soldiers to serve as the PA and FOO during pre-deployment, the Team Leader changed both assignments.  Immediately thereafter, the applicant changed one of the assignments back to his original choice.  In-country, each would change mission concepts of operations (CONOPS) without informing the other.  The applicant was also prone to "quitting" when he did not get his way.  He "quit" as Team Sergeant while in pre-deployment training, and he "quit" in April 2006 while in-country in Afghanistan.  Even though he was no longer Team Sergeant, he continued his personal conflict with the Team Leader.  Sworn statements from team members indicated that after "quitting," the applicant would shut himself in his room, coming out only for food and latrine needs.

11.  The AR 15-6 investigating officer found that the Team Leader and the Team Sergeant [applicant] in that:

	a.  they were derelict in the performance of their duties and that such dereliction was the direct cause of the loss of Government property and funds;

	b.  their unprofessional behavior caused a split in team cohesiveness and created a climate of distrust and secrecy which led to the misuse of OPFUNDS, the misappropriation of Government arms and munitions, and the attempted exportation of contraband from Afghanistan to the United States;


	c.  they failed to exercise any oversight over the PA and FOO which, in turn, led to a total breakdown of OPFUND accountability;

	d.  they demonstrated favoritism of certain team members which divided the team;

	e.  the Team Leader used poor judgment in attempting to replace the applicant with a junior NCO and in appointing an inexperienced, junior NCO as PA;

	f.  the applicant used poor judgment in appointing a certain NCO as the FOO;

	g.  the applicant was derelict in his duties by waiting several months to report OPFUND irregularities to the CJSOTF-A.

12.  The AR 15-6 investigating officer recommended disciplinary action be taken against the Team Leader, the Team Sergeant [applicant], the PA, and the FOO.  His specific recommendations for the applicant were:

	a.  revoke his Special Forces Tab and remove him from the rolls of the Green Berets;

	b.  issue a GOMOR to be permanently filed in his OMPF (Official Military Personnel File);

	c.  issue a relief-for-cause NCOER; 

	d.  rescind any deployment award; and

	e.  commence administrative separation action or, if eligible, permit him to retire at years' end conditioned upon acceptance of a permanent bar to reenlistment.

13.  Upon completion of the deployment, the applicant, Team Leader, PA, and FOO were transferred to Fort Bragg, and assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Special Forces Group to await a decision by the Group Commander, a Regular Army colonel (COL/O-6) concerning possible disciplinary action.


14.  The record shows that the Commander, 7th Special Forces Group, on 21 September 2006, initiated action to revoke the applicant's Special Forces military occupational specialty (MOS) and his Special Forces Tab.  He also recommended the applicant be administered a GOMOR and a relief-for cause NCOER.

15.  The NCO evaluation reporting system (NCOERS) identifies NCOs who are best qualified for promotion and assignments to positions of higher responsibility. The NCOERS also identifies Soldiers who should be kept on active duty, those who should be retained in grade, and those who should be eliminated.  The DA Form 2166–8 (NCOER) is used for these evaluations.  It is divided into parts:

	a.  Part IV (Army Values/Attributes/Skills/Actions) is the rater portion of the NCOER;

		(1) Part IVa (Army Values) requires the rater to check either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the values block based on whether the rated NCO ‘meets’ or ‘does not meet’ the standard for each particular value.  Mandatory specific bullet comments are required for all ‘no’ entries; and

		(2) Part IVb-f (Values/NCO Responsibilities) requires the rater to check one of four blocks and provide bullet comments in the areas of competence, physical fitness and military bearing, leadership, training, and responsibility and accountability.  The blocks are:

* Excellence Block – Exceeds standards; demonstrated by specific examples and measurable results; achieved by only a few NCOs.

* Success Block – Meets all standards; majority of ratings are in this category; fully competitive for schooling and promotion. 

* Needs Improvement [either Some Block or Much Block]; Missed meeting some standard(s).

	b.  Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) is the dual rater/senior rater portion of the NCOER.  The rater comments, by block check, on overall potential – Among The Best, Fully Capable, or Marginal – and lists three positions in which the rated NCO could best serve the Army.  The senior rater provides bullet comments and rates the NCO's overall performance from 1 to 5, with 1,2, and 3 being successful, 4 being fair, and 5 being poor; and overall potential from 1 to 5, with 1, 2, and 3 being superior, 4 being fair, and 5 being poor.

16.  The applicant's record does not contain a relief-for-cause NCOER; the only NCOER in the applicant's Integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management (iPERMS) remotely related to his performance while a member of ODA-2046 is for the period September 2005 through August 2006.  It is an annual report and reflects the following ratings:

	a.  In Part IVa, the rater checked "Yes" for compliance with Army values;

	b.  In Parts IVb through f, the rater checked the "Success" block for all Values/NCO Responsibilities;

	c.  In Part Va, the rater checked "Fully Capable";

	d.  In Part Vb, the rater stated the applicant could best serve the Army as a recruiter, a company operations NCO, or a battalion training NCO;

	e.  In Part Vc, the senior rater rated the applicant's overall performance as a "3 – Successful";

	f.  In Part Vd, the senior rater rated the applicant's overall potential as a "3 – Superior"; and

	g.  In Part Ve, the senior rater said, "quickly and effectively integrated into multi-national staff" and "always concerned about the welfare of subordinates" and "posses [sic] potential for higher level staff assignments."

17.  On 22 January 2007, the Commanding General, Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC issued the applicant a GOMOR.  It said, in pertinent part, that, as Team Sergeant for ODA-2046, he failed to exercise diligent oversight of the PA and FOO which led to a breakdown of OPFUND accountability and the loss of Government property and funds; further, he was derelict in the performance of his duties by waiting several months to report irregularities in the OPFUND.

18.  On 22 May 2007, the Commander of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne), ILARNG initiated a non-transferrable flag against the applicant based on adverse action [the AR 15-6 investigation and subsequent actions].

19.  On 24 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ILARNG and as a Reserve of the Army, and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired Reserve).  His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows 23 years, and 9 months of total service for retired pay.  Among his decorations, medals and badges is the Special Forces Tab.  His MOS is listed as 11Z50 (Senior Infantry Sergeant).  On 11 March 2008, the ILARNG published an NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22) removing the Special Forces Tab from the applicant's NGB Form 22.

20.  Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive.  The investigating officer or board of officers has the following responsibilities:

	a.  Make findings – a finding is a clear and concise statement of a fact that can be readily deduced from evidence in the record. It is directly established by evidence in the record or is a conclusion of fact by the investigating officer or board.  Negative findings (for example, that the evidence does not establish a fact) are often appropriate.  The number and nature of the findings required depend on the purpose of the investigation or board and on the instructions of the appointing authority.  The investigating officer or board will normally not exceed the scope of findings indicated by the appointing authority.  The findings will be necessary and sufficient to support each recommendation.  The standard of proof for a finding is that it must be supported by a greater weight of evidence than supports a contrary conclusion, that is, evidence which, after considering all evidence presented, points to a particular conclusion as being more credible and probable than any other conclusion.  The weight of the evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses or volume of exhibits, but by considering all the evidence and evaluating such factors as the witness's demeanor, opportunity for knowledge, information possessed, ability to recall and relate events, and other indications of veracity; and

	b.  Make recommendations – the nature and extent of recommendations required also depend on the purpose of the investigation or board and on the instructions of the appointing authority.  Each recommendation, even a negative one (for example, that no further action be taken) must be consistent with the findings.  Investigating officers and boards will make their recommendations according to their understanding of the rules, regulations, policies, and customs of the service, guided by their concept of fairness both to the Government and to individuals.

21.  Investigations or boards may be formal or informal.  In an informal investigation or board, a report will be written unless the appointing authority has authorized an oral report.  Written reports of informal investigations will use DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers); however, its use is not required unless specifically directed by the appointing 

authority.  Every report – oral or written, on DA Form 1574 or not – will include findings and, unless the instructions of the appointing authority indicate otherwise, recommendations.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flags)) describes the flagging process as including the physical security and maintenance of the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) of Soldiers not in good standing.  The process depends on timely and accurate reports from commanders to initiate, transfer, and remove suspension of favorable personnel actions.  A flag will be initiated immediately when a Soldier's status changes from favorable to unfavorable.  Active flag cases will be reviewed monthly and flags will be removed immediately when a Soldier's status changes from unfavorable to favorable.

23.  Flags are classified into the two categories, depending upon the specific action or investigation.  A non-transferable flag is one that may not be transferred to another unit.  A transferable flag may be transferred to another unit. Non-transferrable flags are required for:

	a.  Adverse actions;

		(1) Charges, restraint, or investigation.  Remove the flag when soldier is released without charges, charges are dropped, or punishment is completed;

		(2) Court-martial.  Remove the flag upon completion of punishment, to include any term of suspension.  However, a flag for a Soldier on a HQDA promotion list (officer promotable to 03-06, warrant officers promotable to CW3-CW5, and enlisted Soldiers promotable to E7-E9) who is flagged for a court-martial, can only be removed by Headquarters, US Army Human Resources Command – Alexandria (HQ, USAHRC-A);

		(3) Nonjudicial punishment.  Remove the flag upon completion of punishment, to include any term of suspension.  However, a flag for a Soldier on a HQDA promotion list (officer promotable to 03-06, warrant officers promotable to CW3-CW5, and enlisted Soldiers promotable to E7-E9) who is flagged for nonjudicial punishment can only be removed by HQ, USAHRC-A;

		(4) Absent without leave (AWOL).  Remove the flag upon completion of punishment;

		(5) Administrative reduction.  Remove the flag on the day of reduction; and

		(6) Memorandums of admonition, censure, or reprimand not administered as nonjudicial punishment.  Remove the flag upon completion of filing instructions.  However, a flag for a Soldier on a HQDA promotion list (officer promotable to 03-06, warrant officers promotable to CW3-CW5, and enlisted soldiers promotable to E7-E9) who is flagged for one of these memorandums can only be removed by HQ, USAHRC-A.

	b. Elimination – field initiated.  Remove the flag when the Soldier is reassigned to a transition point;

	c. Removal from a promotion, command, or school selection list – field initiated.  A flag for a Soldier on a HQDA promotion list (officer promotable to 03-06, warrant officers promotable to CW3-CW5, and enlisted Soldiers promotable to E7-E9) who is flagged for removal from command, promotion, or school list can only be removed by HQ, USAHRC-A;

	d. A referred officer evaluation report (OER) when on a promotion list.  Remove the flag when received and accepted by HQDA; 

	e. A security violation; and

	f. Elimination or removal from promotion, command, or school selection list – HQDA initiated.  HQDA will remove the flag.

24.  A flag properly imposed in accordance with the regulation prohibits the personnel actions listed below:

	a.  Appointment, reappointment, reenlistment, and extension;

	b.  Entry on active duty (AD) or active duty for training (ADT);

	c.  Reassignment;

	d.  Promotion or reevaluation for promotion;

	e.  Awards and decorations;

	f.  Attendance at civil or military schooling;

	g.  Unqualified resignation or discharge;

	h.  Retirement;

	i.  Advanced or excess leave;

	j.  Payment of enlistment bonus (EB) or selective reenlistment bonus (SRB);

	k.  Assumption of command;

	l.  Family member travel to an oversea command (when sponsor is overseas); and 

	m.  Command sponsorship of family members in an oversea command (when sponsor is overseas).

25.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth Department of the Army criteria, policy and instructions concerning individual military awards, the Good Conduct Medal, service medals and service ribbons, combat and special skill badges and tabs, unit decorations, and trophies and similar devices awarded in recognition of accomplishments.  It provides, in pertinent part, commanders authorized to award combat and special skill badges are authorized to revoke such awards.  The Special Forces Tab may be revoked:

	a.  If the Soldier's Parachutist Badge is revoked;

	b.  If the Soldier initiates action which results in termination or withdrawal of the Special Forces specialty or branch code prior to completing 36 months of Special Forces duty;

	c.  If the Soldier has become permanently medically disqualified from performing Special Forces duty and was found to have become disqualified not in the line of duty;

	d.  If the Soldier has been convicted at a trial by courts-martial or has committed offenses which demonstrate severe professional misconduct, incompetence, or willful dereliction in the performance of Special Forces duties;

	e.  If the Soldier has committed any misconduct which is the subject of an administrative elimination action under the provisions of AR 635-200 or AR 
600-8-24; and 

	f.  If the Soldier has committed any act or engaged in any conduct inconsistent with the integrity, professionalism, and conduct of a Special Forces Soldier.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests removal of a GOMOR and the lifting of a "permanent" flag, that he be awarded an end-of-tour Bronze Star Medal, that his Special Forces Tab be restored, and that an NCOER be rendered that reflects his "true accomplishments."

2.  The applicant was one of four Special Forces Soldiers who got into trouble during a deployment to Afghanistan from 6 January 2006 through 3 September 2006.  An AR 15-6 investigation found he:  was derelict in the performance of his duties, particularly in waiting several months to report OPFUND irregularities to the CJSOTF-A; unprofessional, which led to the misuse of OPFUNDS, the misappropriation of Government arms and munitions, and the attempted exportation of contraband from Afghanistan to the United States; failed to exercise any oversight over the PA and FOO which, in turn, led to a total breakdown of OPFUND accountability; demonstrated favoritism of certain team members which divided the team; and used poor judgment.  The AR 15-6 recommended severe disciplinary action be taken against him.

3.  The applicant, as the Team Sergeant of ODA-2046 became engrossed in a petty, personality conflict with his Team Leader, a captain, which totally subverted the leadership authority of both men and led to a dysfunctional Special Forces team deployed to a combat zone.  The extent of the dysfunction was revealed following the AR 15-6 investigation into financial irregularities in the maintenance of the team's OPFUND.

4.  The applicant contends he tried to exercise monitorship over the OPFUND, but was thwarted by the Team Leader.  He points out that he notified the CID about problems.  This is true, but completely misleading.  The applicant sent his informant letter to the CID on 6 August 2006, several months after many of the problems first surfaced, and on the very same date the CJSOTF-A J7 alerted the team that he would be conducting an inspection of construction projects.  The applicant's letter was merely an attempt at self-preservation rather than an effort to correct a problem.

5.  The applicant exhibited no leadership during the deployment of ODA-2046, resorting instead to the formation of cliques to the detriment of the team and the mission.  Furthermore, instead of working within the chain of command to make the team function, he chose to withdraw by staying in his room for all but taking care of bodily functions.


6.  The applicant received a GOMOR from the Commanding General, Special Forces Command (Airborne).  The GOMOR reprimanded him for dereliction of his duties.  The GOMOR was based on a thorough investigation and the considered recommendations of a Judge Advocate officer who served as the AR 15-6 investigating officer.  The applicant has presented no evidence to refute the GOMOR or to warrant its removal.  Of note is the fact that the actual GOMOR is not a part of the applicant's iPERMS record; the filing determination is in his iPERMS file, but the attachments, to include the actual GOMOR, are missing.

7.  There is no record the applicant was ever considered for award of the Bronze Star Medal for his performance during the deployment of ODA-2046.  Obviously, given the administrative actions taken against him for dereliction of duty and unprofessionalism, such an award would be highly questionable.  The AR 15-6 investigation officer went so far as to recommend the applicant not be given an end-of-tour award, or if already given one, that it be revoked.  Inexplicably, the applicant received an Army Commendation Medal for his service in Afghanistan from January to September 2006.  This award is in his iPERMS record and has not been revoked.

8.  The 7th Special Forces Group commander recommended the applicant's Special Forces MOS and Special Forces Tab be revoked based on his misconduct in Afghanistan.  His misconduct was inconsistent with the integrity, professionalism, and conduct of a Special Forces Soldier, and could have subjected him to an administrative elimination action.  Revocation of his Special Forces tab and his Special Forces MOS was justified.  The ILARNG issued appropriate orders revoking these items.

9.  In accordance with the recommendation of the AR 15-6 investigation, the 7th Special Forces Group commander requested a relief-for cause NCOER be issued to the applicant.  The ILARNG did not comply with that request.  Instead, the applicant received an annual report for the period September 2005 through August 2006.  That report did not mention anything related to the applicant's misconduct in Afghanistan and, although it was not a strong report, neither was it an adverse report.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to support altering the report based upon administrative or substantive irregularities.  the applicant is very fortunate that he did not receive the relief-for-cause NCOER requested by the 7th Special Forces Group commander.

10.  The applicant received a flag on 22 May 2007.  He contends it is a "permanent flag" and requests that it be lifted.  Flags are not permanent.  They are initiated whenever a Soldier status changes from favorable to unfavorable and they remain in place until the status reverts back to favorable for any number 

of reasons.  Soldiers with flags in place may not retire.  The applicant was permitted to retire on 24 July 2007; therefore, his flag had to have been lifted.  The DA Form 268 in the applicant's iPERMS record should be removed.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__X_____  ___X____  ___X___  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 removing the DA Form 268, dated 22 May 2007, from his official file.

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 that pertains to his GOMOR, Bronze Star Medal, Special Forces Tab, and NCOER.




      _______ _X   _______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010178



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010178



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1