DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-074 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair 
docketed the application on March 4, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s com-
pleted application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  8,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  yeoman  first  class  (YN1)  on  special  assignment  as  a 
recruiter  in  San  Antonio,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  (a) 
recalculating  his  May  2004  servicewide  exam  (SWE)  final  multiple  with  the 
marks from his May 31, 2003, enlisted performance evaluation form (EPEF), (b) 
adjusting his standing on the advancement the list,1 and (c) removing a January 
28, 2005, memorandum concerning a request mast from his permanent record. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that when he received the EPEF on July 17, 2003, he 
signed it and sent it to the administrative offices of the Coast Guard Recruiting 
Command (CGRC) for placement in his record. He alleged that a tracking work-
sheet  maintained  by  his  unit’s  Recruiter  in Charge  (SCPO  C)  indicates  that  the 
EPEF  was  received  by  Petty  Officer  D  at  CGRC  Administration.    However,  on 
March 25, 2004, when he received and reviewed his personal data extract (PDE) 
                                                 
1 The applicant placed #37 on the list, which was above the cutoff for advancement.  However, 
recalculating his standing might result in higher placement and an earlier date of rank. 

prior to the May 2004 SWE, he discovered that his EPEF for the period ending 
May 31, 2003, was not in his record.  The applicant knew that the absence of the 
EPEF  might  lower  his  standing  on  the  advancement  list  following  the  SWE.  
Therefore,  he  notified  CGRC  that  the  EPEF  was  missing  from  his  PDE  and 
requested correction of the PDE.  He was told to fax in the EPEF with his PDE 
and did so.  However, he alleged, he had no computer and no access to the Coast 
Guard’s database CGHRMS so he could not check that the correction had been 
made.  He later discovered that the EPEF was never placed in his record and was 
not included in the calculation of his final standing on the advancement list fol-
lowing the May 2004 SWE. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of several e-
mail messages.  One, dated January 3, 2005, is from his supervisor, SCPO C, who 
stated the following: 
 

Every process or system we use is not 100% fool proof as each of these is main-
tained or controlled in some way by a human element.  The enlisted evaluation 
process and Direct Access are only as good as the personnel that input or main-
tain them.  I agree with [LCDR H] in that this matter should have been corrected 
6 months ago; but it wasn’t and now the member may or may not be the victim 
even after attempting to have the error corrected.  I was personally involved in 
these  missing  eval[uation]s  and  also  thought  the  situation  had  been  resolved; 
obviously as Recruiter in Charge I failed one of my people.  

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  e-mail  supports  his  claim  that  he  timely 
faxed  the  EPEF  to  CGRC  Administration.    He  alleged  that  faxing  the  EPEF  to 
CGRC Administration was the accepted manner of ensuring that it was entered 
into  a  member’s  record  and  that  his  actions  should  have  been  sufficient.    He 
alleged that a “follow up was never required.”  In addition, he stated, the CGRC 
staff  previously  had  sent  out  e-mails  listing  the  names  of  members  for  whom 
evaluations  were  overdue  (and  provided  a  copy  of  one  dated  January  2,  2003, 
which indicated that his EPEF dated November 30, 2002, was overdue).  How-
ever, he received no such e-mail to inform him that the May 31, 2003, EPEF was 
missing.  The applicant also submitted three e-mail messages he sent to CGRC on 
December 18, 2002; January 2, 2003; and January 15, 2003, in which he stated that 
while  looking  at  CGHRMS,  he  had  noticed  that  three  EPEFs  he  had  received 
while stationed in Puerto Rico were missing. 
 
The applicant alleged that when he realized that his final standing on the 
 
advancement  list  was  erroneously  low  because  of  the  absence  of  the  EPEF,  he 
initiated a request mast with the Commander of CGRC.  He stated that following 
the  mast,  the  Commander  refused  to  pursue  correction  of  his  standing  on  the 
advancement  list  primarily  because  he  did  not  retain  proof  that  he  had  timely 
faxed  the  EPEF  to  CGRC  Administration  and  that  his  fax  was  received.    He 

alleged that both his supervisor and sector supervisor supported his claim that 
he had faxed the EPEF to CGRC Administration. 
 
The applicant also stated that after receiving the January 28, 2005, memo-
 
randum, he replied to it with his objections via e-mail.  The Commander replied 
to him via e-mail on February 1, 2005, and stated that he knew that the applicant 
had  faxed  the  EPEF  to  CGRC  Administration  and  that  this  was  proper  proce-
dure.  However, the Commander stated, he did not know if CGRC had received 
the fax and the applicant admitted at the mast that he did not follow up the fax 
with a telephone call or e-mail.  Therefore, the Commander had determined that 
the  applicant  did  not  do  enough  to  “ensure”  that  the  correction  was  made,  as 
required.  The Commander also pointed out in this e-mail that the applicant did 
not raise the issue until December 4, 2004, “when it was too late to make correc-
tions that would affect the advancement list.”  The applicant argued, “If the CO 
‘knows’ that the fax was sent, doesn’t that mean they received it.  Then shouldn’t 
they proceed to correct the problem.” 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that CGRC tried to “get [him] to back down,” 
by pointing out that an evaluation dated May 31, 2002, which had lower marks, 
was also missing from the PDE.  The applicant alleged, however, that that EPEF 
was invalid because it was signed only by his supervisor on a temporary assign-
ment to South America and not by a marking official and approving official. 
 

The applicant alleged that he has been harmed by CGRC Administration’s 
mistakes: first when it failed to enter his May 31, 2003, EPEF in his record in 2003, 
and  second  when  it  failed  to  enter  it  in  his  record  after  he  faxed  it  to  them  in 
March 2004.  The applicant stated that while there may have been a deadline for 
correcting his PDE, there is no deadline for correcting the advancement list and 
that his name should appear on that list in the proper position. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On  July  11,  1988,  the applicant  enlisted  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard.    He 
attended boot camp and YN “A” School to join the yeoman rating.  The applicant 
received many excellent evaluations, commendations, and medals first as a yeo-
man and then as a recruiter. 
 

 
On  the  applicant’s  EPEF  for  his  work  as  a  recruiter  from  December  1, 
2002, to May 31, 2003, he received one mark of 4,2 two marks of 5, twelve marks 
of 6, and seven marks of 7.  The EPEF was signed by the applicant’s supervisor 

                                                 
2 In an EPEF, a petty officer is evaluated in 22 different performance “dimensions” on a scale of 1 
to 7, with 7 being best. 

and marking official in June 2003; by the approving official on July 10, 2003; and 
by the applicant on July 17, 2003.  His next EPEF was similarly excellent.  He was 
recommended for advancement by his rating chain. 

 
On March 25, 2004, the applicant signed his PDE, which did not include 
the marks from his May 31, 2003, EPEF.  He noted the absence of the EPEF on the 
PDE with a handwritten notation.  The PDE form states the following above the 
applicant’s signature and notes that, after signing it, the member should give the 
form to his “unit admin personnel”: 

 
If  errors  are  found,  note  them  on  a  printed  copy  of  this  form  and  inform  your 
admin  personnel.    It  is  the  member’s  responsibility  to  ensure  that  incorrect  or 
missing data is [sic] updated in Direct Access prior to the PDE verification dead-
line date for each SWE. 
 
Certification:  I have reviewed my PDE for accuracy.  If any data is [sic] missing 
or incorrect, I have so noted it on  this form and will  ensure correction is  made 
prior to the PDE correction deadline date. 
 
On December 27, 2004, the applicant e-mailed the Personnel Service Cen-
ter (PSC) and informed them that his “evals were never input into the system for 
2004 MAY SWE.  I submitted my evals again and my understanding is that they 
have been put into the system.  I had also pointed out the discrepancies on my 
PDE  for  YNC  MAY  2004.    I  believe  that  somewhere  along  the  line  these  were 
misplaced up at HQ CGRC.  I have copies of all these documents.  What I need is 
for PSC to recalculate my MARKS FINAL MULTIPLE so that [I] can be placed in 
the proper slot for advancement.”  The applicant’s request for recalculation was 
disapproved  the  same  day.    The  PSC  pointed  out  that  ALCGEN  008/04  stated 
that “[m]embers are responsible for identifying discrepancies on their PDE and 
working  with  their  unit  and/or  PERSRU  to  ensure  appropriate  corrections  are 
made,” that the deadline for corrections was April 5, 2004, and that the PSC was 
the sole point of contact for all SWE inquiries.  However, the PSC was not noti-
fied of any problem until December 22, 2004.  The PSC also pointed out that the 
advancement  list  was  published  on  July  14,  2004.    The  PSC’s  decision  was 
approved by LCDR H, Chief of the Advancements and Separation Branch of the 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  Although the applicant appealed the 
matter to LCDR H again on January 2, 2005, his request was again disapproved. 

 
On January 26, 2005, the applicant met with the Commander of CGRC at a 
request  mast  to  seek  relief.    He  alleged  that  the  May  31,  2003,  EPEF  was  not 
included in the calculation of his standing after the SWE and that he had discov-
ered that none of his evaluations had been properly entered in his record since 
1999.  He asked that the EPEF be included in the calculation of his standing on 
the advancement list. 

 
On  January  28,  2005,  the  Commander  of  CGRC  sent  the  applicant  a 

memorandum denying his request as follows: 

 
2.  I cannot pursue relief for this situation because I find that you did not fully 
discharge  your  duties  under  the  Coast  Guard  Advancement  System.    [On  the 
PDE]  …  there  is  an  annotation  …  showing  “5/31/2003”  under  the  Evaluations 
Block.  However, you stated to me during the request mast that your only action 
to correct this error was to fax the PDE and your 5/31/03 evaluation to CGRC, 
and you did not follow up on this issue in any other way, including follow up 
phone calls or e-mails.  The PDE form states that “It is the member’s responsibil-
ity … .”  In this case, the PDE verification deadline was 5 April 2004. [The Per-
sonnel  Manual]  places  the  burden  on  the  member,  as  it  states,  “By  signing  the 
CG-4902 (Personnel Data Extract), members state all changes noted or informa-
tion  on  the  form  are  current  and  correct  and  no  further  corrections  are  neces-
sary.”    I  note  also  that  the  May  2003  SWE  shows  gaps  in  evaluations  from 
11/30/2001 and 5/31/2002.  However, there are not annotations on that form or 
corrective action noted. 
 
3.  Your recent evaluation record in Direct Access now appears complete.  Evalu-
ations are shown with the effective date of 11/30/2002, 5/31/2003, 11/30/2003, 
5/31/2004, and 11/30/2004. 
 
4.    The  purpose  of  the  Service  Wide  Examination  is  to  rank  order  individuals 
who  are  fully  qualified  for  advancement.    The  accuracy  and  completeness  of 
information is the cornerstone of that process, and the PDE provides the member 
the  chance  to  see  the  information,  acknowledge  its  status  in  writing,  with  the 
opportunity to take timely corrective action as needed.  While you state that you 
sent the missing information by fax, there is no record of its receipt.  If fact, the 
PDE for the May 2003 SWE was provided by you and is not present in the com-
mand files.  Since you did not follow up on the fax of information or confirm its 
receipt, I cannot pursue relief. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On July 22, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 

submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.  

 
The  JAG  argued  that  Article  10.B.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides 
that the member is responsible for ensuring that his EPEFs are properly recorded 
and that the SWE Guide requires members to verify the accuracy of their PDEs 
and to follow-up to ensure any correction is made prior to the deadline.  The JAG 
argued that the applicant is not entitled to relief because he failed to follow up 
and ensure that the EPEF was entered in his record in a timely manner.  The JAG 
noted  that the  applicant  did  not  contact  the  PSC  until  more  than eight  months 
after the April 5, 2004, deadline. 

 

The  JAG  also  adopted  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  CGPC.  
CGPC stated that although the applicant noted the missing EPEF on his PDE, he 
“failed to ensure that the requested corrections were received and/or made prior 
to the deadline date as required by Coast Guard policy” and “failed to notify the 
PSC (adv) regarding the issue.  The applicant made no contact with PSC (adv) 
until December 27, 2004, more than five (5) months after the May 2004 SWE Eli-
gibility List was published.”  CGPC recommended that no relief be granted. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  12,  2005,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard.  He alleged that he did ensure that the correction was made through his 
supervisor,  the  Recruiter  in  Charge.    He  alleged  that  his  supervisor’s  e-mail 
shows that the supervisor verified the matter with the sector supervisor. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  recruiters  are  not  allowed  to  contact  the  PSC 
directly and can only contact CGRC about administrative matters.  Therefore, he 
e-mailed the PSC in December 2004 only after CGRC told him to do so.  More-
over, because his office was having computer problems, he had no way to verify 
the  correction  through  Direct  Access  and  had  to  work  by  fax.    He  alleged  that 
neither  his  supervisor  nor  his  sector  supervisor  could  access  the  system  either.  
He  alleged  that  he  only  discovered  the  error  in  December  2004  because  he 
checked his record when he was considering competing for an appointment as a 
warrant officer. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that it is unfair for members to be held accountable 
when CGRC routinely fails to enter EPEFs into the database.  He alleged that by 
the Coast Guard’s logic, even if he had tried to verify the correction ten times, he 
would still be accountable if CGRC failed to enter his EPEF in the system. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
HRSICINST  M1418.1B,  the  “SWE  Guide,”  which  was  in  effect  in  March 
2004, stated that the “SWE cycle is a multi-level process requiring all responsible 
parties to do their part to ensure success.  Failure by a supervisor or supporting 
command to fulfill their responsibilities is not justification for a waiver and may 
result in the member not qualifying to test.”  The list of the member’s responsi-
bilities includes “verify and sign Personal Data Extract (PDE)” and “follow-up to 
ensure action was completed to correct any PDE errors prior to deadline.”  The 
unit’s  responsibilities  include  “provide  administrative  assistance  to  member  in 
correcting  errors  on  PDE  prior  to  deadline.”    The  PERSRU’s  duty  is  to  “assist 
units as needed in correcting PMIS/JUMPS and Direct Access errors as reflected 
on the member’s PDE.” 

 
ALCGENL 008/04, which was issued on January 27, 2004, stated the fol-

lowing in pertinent part: 

 
1.  SUMMARY.  This message announces the May 2004 SWE competition in all 
ratings  …  All  personnel  intending  to  participate  need  to  be  aware  of  these 
requirements  and  their  responsibility  to  confirm  that  they  are  met.    All  PERS-
RU’s,  units,  ESOs,  SWE  Board  officers,  and  affected  members  shall  familiarize 
themselves with the contents of this ALCGENL.  It is critical for members to care-
fully review and take timely action to correct their Personal Data Extract (PDE).  
Members are responsible for identifying discrepancies on their PDE and working 
with  their  unit  and/or  PERSRU  to  ensure  appropriate  corrections  are  made.  
Each  SWE  cycle,  a  significant  number  of  members  are  unable  to  compete  for 
advancement because they fail to verify/correct their PDE or do not receive full 
credit for awards.  PSC (adv) is the single [point of contact] for all SWE inquiries.  
Questions and requests should be addressed to … Requests for corrections and/ 
or waivers must be sent by msg to [the PSC] and prior to scheduled deadlines. 

•  •  • 

4. RESPONSIBILITIES. 
A.  MEMBER.  It is the member’s responsibility to ensure all eligibility require-
ments to compete in the May 2004 SWE are met … .  PDEs should be available in 
Direct Access [on or about March 1, 2004].  Follow-on deadlines include: 

Requirement Deadline 
(1)  Verify, correct, and sign PDE 
(2)  Verify all corrective action has been entered in Direct Access (no cor-

26 MAR 04 

 

 

rections will be authorized after this date) 

 

 

5 APR 04 

B.  COMMAND RESPONSIBILITIES … 
 

Requirement Deadline …  
(8)    Last  day  exam  Board  OPFAC  can  be  changed  if  incorrect  on  PDE 

•  •  • 

(send req via msg to PSC(adv) 

 

 

•  •  • 

 

 

5 APR 04 

C.  PERSRU ACTION. … 
 
 

(2)  Last day for PERSRUs to input any PDE corrections  5 APR 04 

Article  10.B.4.b.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  are 
responsible  for  “[v]erifying  through  CGHRMS  self  service  that  their  individual 
employee review has been properly recorded.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of 
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, 
and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely.  
 

2. 

4. 

 The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The 
Chair, acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended 
disposition of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommen-
dation. 
 
3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  complied  with  the  requirements  of 
ALCGENL  008/04  and  HRSICINST  M1418.1B  by  correcting  his  PDE  with  a 
notation and faxing it with the EPEF to CGRC Administration.  He alleged that 
he was not allowed to contact the PSC directly about the matter, and this allega-
tion  is  supported  by  his  communications  with  Commander,  CGRC,  who 
acknowledged that faxing the PDE to CGRC Administration was the proper pro-
cedure.    The  applicant  alleged  his  supervisor  and  sector  supervisor  confirmed 
that CGRC Administration received the PDE and EPEF but that, with no opera-
tional computers, neither he nor they had a way to check that CGRC Adminis-
tration had actually completed the requested correction. 
 
 
The  applicant  has  submitted  no  evidence  to  prove  that  he  timely 
faxed the PDE and EPEF to CGRC Administration in March 2004.  Although he 
alleged  that  his  supervisor  and  sector  supervisor  confirmed  CGRC’s  receipt  of 
the faxed PDE and EPEF, he did not submit any evidence to support this claim.  
There is no statement by either the supervisor or sector supervisor in the record 
averring that, after the applicant faxed his PDE and EPEF to CGRC Administra-
tion in March 2004, they or the applicant called or contacted CGRC to confirm 
receipt of the fax or confirm the correction of the PDE.  The supervisor’s email 
dated January 2, 2005, is extremely vague and does not mention any fax by the 
applicant or attempts by him or anyone else to confirm that the alleged fax was 
received and the correction made. 
 

5. 

At  a  request  mast  on  January  26,  2005,  however,  the  applicant 
apparently persuaded Commander, CGRC, that he had faxed or attempted to fax 
the PDE and EPEF to CGRC Administration.  Assuming arguendo that the appli-
cant  did  fax  the  PDE  and  EPEF  to  CGRC  Administration  in  March  2004,  the 
Board  agrees  with  Commander,  CGRC,  that  running  pages  through  a  fax 
machine cannot be considered adequate action to ensure that the faxed pages are 

received and properly channeled in the recipient office.  There is no evidence in 
the record that the applicant (or his supervisor or sector supervisor) followed up 
on  the  alleged  fax  with  any  other  personal  contact  to  ensure  that  it  had  been 
received and would be processed.  Although the applicant alleged that receipt of 
the fax was confirmed, nothing in the record supports this allegation. 
 

 6. 

The applicant alleged that he had no access to a computer during 
the period in question and therefore no way to determine whether the correction 
to his PDE had been made.  The applicant submitted no evidence of the dates the 
personnel in his office had no operational computers.  Nor has he submitted evi-
dence  supporting  his  allegation  that  he  had  no  reasonable  way  of  accessing 
Direct Access during the relevant period.  In addition, the applicant has failed to 
explain why he did not check that the requested correction had been made until 
December 2004—eight months after the April 5, 2004, deadline and five months 
after the advancement eligibility list was issued. 

 
7. 

The applicant argued that CGRC Administration erred by failing to 
enter the EPEF into his record initially and then by failing to correct his PDE in 
response to his alleged fax.  He argued that it is unfair that his name appeared 
lower  on  the  advancement  list  because  of  their  errors.    However,  as  the  appli-
cant’s  supervisor  stated,  no  administrative  system  is  100%  fool  proof,  as  the 
applicant  clearly  knew  because  in  December  2002  he  himself  discovered  that 
three prior EPEFs he had received while stationed in Puerto Rico had not been 
entered in his record.  Members are clearly best positioned to know whether or 
not their own PDEs are complete and correct.  Therefore, the regulations reason-
ably  place  the  burden  of  verification  on  the  members  themselves.    Contrary  to 
Article  10.B.4.b.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant  apparently  did  not 
check that the May 31, 2003, EPEF, had been properly recorded before receiving 
his PDE in March 2004.  He has not proved that he took any action to ensure that 
his  PDE  was  corrected  apart  from  (allegedly)  putting  his  PDE  and  the  EPEF 
through  a  fax  machine,  as  required  by  ALCGENL  008/04  and  HRSICINST 
M1418.1B.  While CGRC Administration apparently erred in failing to record the 
EPEF in 2003 and might have erred in failing to process the alleged fax in March 
2004, the regulations put the applicant on notice that it was his responsibility to 
ensure that his PDE was corrected by April 5, 2004, and he has not proved that 
he did so.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Coast Guard’s refusal to recalculate 
his position on the advancement list is neither error nor injustice.3  

 
8. 

The applicant has not proved his allegations by a preponderance of 
the  evidence.    Although  he  apparently  believes  that  his  supervisor  and  sector 
                                                 
3 See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing 
Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 
10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is treatment by military authorities that “shocks the sense of justice”). 

supervisor  support  his  allegations,  he  has  not  submitted  detailed  statements 
from them to prove his specific claims.  If in fact they witnessed the timely faxing 
of the PDE and EPEF in March 2004 and if in fact they followed up to confirm 
that the fax was received and that the correction was made, the applicant should 
be able to produce their statements detailing what they know and what they did.  
If in fact the applicant had no reasonable way of accessing a Coast Guard com-
puter and verifying the correction (or lack thereof) in Direct Access throughout 
March and April 2004, the applicant should be able to produce a statement by his 
supervisor supporting this allegation.   

 
9. 

The  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  because  he  has  not 
proved his allegations.  However, the Board believes that it is possible that the 
applicant would have been able to submit supporting, conclusive statements by 
his supervisors if he had understood the kind of evidence that is needed to prove 
his allegations.  Therefore, if within 90 days of the date of this decision, the appli-
cant is able to submit statements by his supervisors, such as those described in 
finding 8, above, to prove his allegations, the Board will grant further considera-
tion of his case. 

 
 

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn