DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-197 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed application on July 6, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the 
decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  26,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged for unacceptable conduct on October 10, 
2000, asked the Board to correct her record to reflect a medical separation for bipolar disorder.1  
The applicant stated that she was diagnosed as bipolar after she was discharged from the Coast 
Guard, but she believes that she had the condition prior to her discharge and was misdiagnosed 
by military physicians.  She alleged that her bipolar disorder caused the behavior for which she 
was discharged and has manifested itself since her discharge from the Coast Guard.  The appli-
cant alleged that she discovered this error and injustice on November 13, 2008, and alleged that 
it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the delay of her application because she was 
recently hospitalized because of her bipolar disorder.  In support of her allegations, the applicant 
submitted copies of medical records, which are in the record summarized below. 

                                                 
1  Bipolar disorder is a mood disorder characterized by recurrent depressive episodes and manic episodes and some-
times by psychotic or catatonic features. American Psychiatric Association, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL 
OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION (2000) (DSM-IV-TR), p. 382 et seq.  The Coast Guard 
relies  on  the  DSM  when  diagnosing  psychiatric  conditions.  See  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST  M6000.1B, 
MEDICAL MANUAL Chap. 5.B.1. (Change 15, Aug. 24, 2000).  The average age at onset is 20.  DSM-IV-TR, at 386.  
Truancy and occupational failure are common features of the disorder.  Id. at 394.  Paranoia, grandiosity, distrac-
tability, sleep disturbance, non-stop talking, poor judgment, and irritability are some of the common symptoms of 
bipolar disorder.  Eugene Braunwald et al., eds., HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES  OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 15TH EDITION 
(McGraw-Hill, 2001), p. 2551.  Bipolar disorders constitute physical disabilities disqualifying for military service 
and  members  with  bipolar  disorders  are  processed  under  the  physical  disability  evaluation  system.    U.S.  COAST 
GUARD, COMDTINST M6000.1B, MEDICAL MANUAL Chap. 5.B.10. (Change 15, Aug. 24, 2000).   

 

On October 28, 1997, at the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  While 
on active duty, the applicant was treated for a variety of physical ailments.  Only the medical 
records that concern her mental condition are included in this summary. 

 
On December 9, 1998, the applicant was counseled about reporting for work an hour late. 
 
On March 23, 1999, the applicant was counseled about poor watchstanding, misuse of 
Government materials, sleeping during training, and disrespect for petty officers.  The Executive 
Officer noted that despite counseling, she continued to question the authority of senior petty offi-
cers to give her orders and that any further disobedience would result in disciplinary action. 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

On July 2, 1999, the applicant was counseled for failing to obey an order; failing to have 

On  July  23,  1999,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  report  for  showing  disrespect  toward  a 

 
On April 16, 1999, the applicant was placed on report for insubordinate conduct toward a 
petty officer, failing to obey an order, and making a false official statement in violation of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Although the charges were dismissed, she was coun-
seled about her lackadaisical attitude and failure to present her safety equipment for inspection as 
ordered by her supervisor. 
 
 
an inspection-ready uniform; and failing to report to work on time. 
 
 
senior petty officer and for dereliction of duty. 
 
 
On August 18, 1999, the applicant’s supervisor sent her to the health clinic but failed to 
tell her she would be undergoing a psychiatric evaluation.  The doctor noted that it was too dif-
ficult to perform the evaluation because the applicant was shocked and upset. 
 
 
On August 24, 1999, the applicant was punished at mast.  Comments on a performance 
evaluation in her record state that she had never successfully passed personnel inspection during 
the evaluation period because she did not even have all the necessary parts of the uniform; had 
repeatedly failed room inspections, missed morning muster, or reported for muster out of uni-
form;  had  reported  for  work  late  and  failed  to  obey  orders;  had  thrown  away  new  equipment 
needed for an engraving machine; had slept during her training on the engraving process; had 
shown  disrespect  for  petty  officers;  and  had  been  ordered  to  live  in  the  barracks  because  of 
financial irresponsibility.  She was reduced in pay grade from E-3 to E-2. 
 
 
On October 27, 1999, the applicant was counseled about her absence and failure to report 
for morning muster on October 20, 1999.  She was warned that any future late arrivals would be 
punished at mast.  The Executive Officer further noted that the applicant took this counseling as 
a “personal attack” and began challenging the his authority  to counsel her.  She was advised to 
seek “workplace coping skills training from the CG Employee Assistance Program” to learn not 
to lash out when her supervisors were trying to redirect her focus. 
 

 
On December 17, 1999, the applicant was counseled about the fact that her room smelled 
so bad that on December 7, 1999, a contract repairman had refused to enter the room to make 
repairs.  Her supervisor had previously made sure that she had seen and understood the regula-
tions for room cleanliness.  She was ordered to prepare a written analysis of each paragraph of 
the regulations, and she was advised that any further infraction would be punished at mast. 
 
 
On December 22, 1999, the applicant was punished at mast for failing to accompany her 
guests and ensure that they departed on time.  She was also counseled about repeatedly failing 
room inspections, shading the truth, and poor performance. 
 
 
On December 23, 1999, the applicant went to the clinic complaining of mood swings and 
mixed emotions.  A physician’s assistant referred her for a psychiatric evaluation to rule out a 
possible bipolar disorder.  The assistant noted that the applicant had had “multiple job perform-
ance problems” and that she claimed that she would work well one day but do nothing the next.  
 
 
On December 27, 1999, the applicant was counseled about her “continued failure to obey 
basic rules as a watchstander and for [her] recurring failure to obey supervisors within the facil-
ity engineering division.”  The applicant was placed on performance probation and warned that 
unless she improved and abided by the rules, the command would initiate her discharge. 
 
 
On January 4, 2000, the applicant went to the clinic to ask questions about her upcoming 
psychiatric evaluation.  A doctor met with her and reported that the evaluation was needed to 
rule out a possible adjustment disorder or bipolar disorder but that she was fit for full duty. 
 
 
On January 11, 2000, the applicant was counseled about cleanliness because her  room 
and bathroom had been so unclean that the command had had to house her new roommate else-
where while the rooms were cleaned. 
 

On January 27, 2000, a psychiatrist filed the following report: 

 

Diagnosis:  No psychiatric diagnosis at this time. 
Plan/Rec.:    (1)  Patient  is  psychiatrically  fit  for  full  duty.    (2)  She  is  fully  responsible  for  her 
actions.  (3) She agrees to seek medical help if suicidal or homicidal ideations occur.  (4) Although 
[she] appears to be reacting normally to psychosocial stressors, she may benefit from counseling 
from  a  psychologist  or  LCSW,  and  command  can  consider  arranging  this  for  patient.    I  also 
advised  [her]  that  National  Alliance  for  the  Mentally  Ill  can  provide  resources  and  names  of 
groups for family members of schizophrenics.  (5) No further follow-up by Psychiatry indicated at 
this  time.    If  [she]  finds  symptoms  worsening,  she  should  report  to  medical  and  we  would  be 
happy to see [her] concerning use of medication at that time.  [She] stated she does not want psy-
chotropic medications and none appear indicated at this time.  (6) Above [discussed with patient] 
who understood and agreed.  (7) Attempt to contact [the unit health specialist] unsuccessful.  (8) 
[psychiatrist’s name and telephone number]. 
 
[History]:    Voluntary  evaluation  for  this  20  y.o.  single  female  SR/USCG/AD  with  2½  yr.  AD.  
[She]  stated  she  has  had  some  difficulties  with  Coast  Guard,  has  been  unhappy  with  work,  but 
feels she has changed her attitude and is looking forward to finishing her enlistment and perhaps 
in remaining in Coast Guard.  She has had two NJPs, both Art. 92.  [She] stated another stressor 
has  been  visiting  her  mother,  who  is  institutionalized  with  schizophrenia.    [She]  has  separated 
from  mother  at  an  early  age.    She  described  a  happy  childhood  but  missed  her  mother.    [She] 
denied any [history of] depressed mood longer than a few hours, or any [history of] sustained ele-

vated mood or unusual behaviors.  She denied sleep disturbance greater than one day.  She denied 
prolonged irritability, poor energy, concentration, or sense of enjoyment.  She denied any [history 
of] alcohol or drug abuse.  She denied any [history of] perceptual disturbance.  She denied any 
[history of] suicidal or homicidal ideation.  [Family history]: + schizophrenia–mother, alcohol-
brother, drugs-sister. 
 
[Affect]:  [Patient] is alert, calm, fully oriented, well-kempt in [unreadable word].  Mood euthymic 
except  for  tearful  episode  when  talking  about  mother.    Eye  contact  and  psycho  motor  activity 
normal.  Speech normal in flow and goal-directed.  There is no evidence of psychosis, mood insta-
bility,  organicity,  medically  boardable  mood  or  anxiety  disorders,  suicidality,  or  homicidality.  
[She] denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.  Cognition, memory, insight, judgment intact.  

 
On June 22, 2000, the applicant’s supervisor sent her for a mental evaluation after she 
 
made a comment about jumping from a bridge.  The doctor reported that the applicant denied 
being suicidal and “just wants to get out of the USCG.”  She complained to the doctor that she 
was not learning anything, that she was always blamed for small errors, and that she did not like 
to receive orders like a child.  She was tired of being punished at mast, tired of reporting for 
work and doing “nothing,” and just wanted out of the Coast Guard.  The applicant attributed her 
comment about jumping from the bridge to wanting an adrenalin rush.  The doctor noted that the 
prior  psychiatric  evaluation  had  resulted  in  no  psychiatric  diagnosis  and  found  her  fit  for  full 
duty.  However, he diagnosed her with an “adjustment disorder mixed”2 because she could not 
cope with being in the military and recommended that she be discharged.   
 
On June 30, 2000, the applicant was punished at mast because as the District mail clerk, 
 
she  had  “grossly  neglected  to  follow  established  mail  handling  procedures  for  registered  mail 
and negligently failed to show up to morning muster and subsequent personnel inspection.”  She 
had left a registered mail package containing classified material unsecured in the mail room and 
in her car, had failed to mail the package, and had missed morning muster. 
 
 
On August 5, 2000, the applicant was charged with insubordinate conduct toward a petty 
officer, reckless operation of a vehicle, damaging military property, and failing to obey an order.  
The records indicate that although her driver’s license had been suspended and arrangements had 
been made  for someone else to drive her to her eye examination, she operated  a Government 
vehicle in violation of a direct order from a petty officer, ran a stop sign, and caused an accident 
with extensive vehicular damage. 
 

On August 9, 2000, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) 
after she failed to report for morning muster and duty.  She was charged with the same offenses 
when she missed muster on August 11, 2000.  At mast on August 14, 2000, the applicant was 
reduced in pay grade from E-2 to E-1; fined $100; and restricted to the base with extra duties for 
thirty days. 

                                                 
2 Adjustment disorders are defined as psychological responses to identifiable stressors that result in the development 
of  clinically  significant  emotional  or  behavioral  symptoms,  including  either  “marked  distress  that  is  in  excess  of 
what would be expected given the nature of the stressor or … significant impairment in social or occupational (aca-
demic)  functioning.”    DSM-IV-TR,  p.  679.    Adjustment  disorders  disappear  when  the  stressors  disappear.    Id.  
Adjustment disorders are not considered physical disabilities, but members with chronic adjustment disorders that 
interfere  with  their  performance  of  duty  are  administratively  (not  medically)  discharged.    U.S.  COAST  GUARD, 
COMDTINST M6000.1B, MEDICAL MANUAL Chap. 5.B.3. (Change 15, Aug. 24, 2000).   

 
On August 16, 2000, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) notified her that he was 
initiating her honorable discharge for unsatisfactory performance because her performance had 
not improved while she was on probation.  He advised her that she was entitled to object to the 
discharge and to submit a statement rebutting his recommendation. 
 
 
On August 17, 2000, the applicant signed a statement objecting to the circumstances of 
her discharge, but noting that she did not object to being discharged.  She submitted a statement 
noting that she had received two unit commendations and a team award while on active duty.  
She asked to be retained through her third active duty anniversary, October 27, 2000, so that she 
would be eligible for educational benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB).  
 
 
On August 22, 2000, the CO sought authority to discharge the applicant for unsatisfac-
tory performance under Article 12.B.9. of the Personnel Manual.  He noted that she had been 
counseled  about  her  poor  performance  numerous  times  and  had  been  punished  at  mast  four 
times.  However, he recommended that she receive an honorable discharge and that she be dis-
charged on or after October 27, 2000, so that she would have three continuous years of service 
and be eligible for MGIB benefits.   
 

 
On September 13, 2000, the applicant’s command responded to the discharge order by 
asking that her discharge date be changed to November 1, 2000, so that the applicant would be 
entitled to MGIB benefits.  However, on September 15, 2000, this request to delay her discharge 
was disapproved based upon her numerous violations of the UCMJ. 
 
 
On September 22, 2000, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to her 
pending discharge.  On her Report of Medical History, she denied ever suffering from insomnia, 
depression, or nervous trouble of any sort and wrote that she was in good health.  No physical 
disabilities were discovered during the examination, and she was found fit for discharge. 
 
 
On October 10, 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard for 
unacceptable  conduct  under  Article  12.B.16.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    She  had  completed  
2 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active duty. 
 

On October 5, 2008, the applicant was admitted to a hospital.  A mental health technician 
who  conducted  the  intake  evaluation  reported  that  the  applicant  was  “delusional  +  paranoid.  

On August 30, 2000, the Commandant responded to the CO and stated that the applicant 
should be discharged for unsuitability under Article 12.B.16.b.3. of the Personnel Manual, which 
authorized discharges for “Apathy, Defective Attitudes, and Inability to Expend Effort Construc-
tively.”  The CO was advised to give the applicant notice of this change and another opportunity 
to object to her discharge.  On August 31, 2000, the applicant acknowledged notice of the pro-
posed discharge for unsuitability and again noted that she did not object to being discharged. 

 
On September 12, 2000, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be honorably dis-
charged  for  unsuitability  no  later  than  October  10,  2000,  with  a  JNC  separation  code,  which 
denotes “unacceptable conduct.” 

Unable to function.  Calling police + fire dept. often.”  Upon her discharge, the applicant’s con-
dition  was  noted  as  an  exacerbation  and  manic  phase  of  her  bipolar  disorder  with  psychotic 
symptoms.  The doctor noted that she had previously been hospitalized at two other institutions 
due to a “bipolar disorder with manic flares,” which had been treated with the drug Abilify. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
 
in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the 
facts and analysis provided by the Personnel Service Center (PSC) in an attached memorandum.  
 
 
PSC stated that the application is not timely and should be denied due to untimeliness.  
PSC stated that the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation while in the Coast Guard and 
was found to be psychiatrically fit for duty and fully responsible for her conduct.  PSC further 
noted  that  the  earliest  documentation  of  a  diagnosis  of  bipolar  disorder  in  the  record  is  dated 
October 5, 2008, eight years after the applicant’s discharge from active duty.  PSC concluded 
that  the  applicant  was  “appropriately  processed  for  separation  due  to  misconduct”  and  so  no 
relief should be granted. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  November  3,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited her to submit a response within thirty day.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 12.B.16.b.3. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2000 authorized discharges for 
“Apathy, Defective Attitudes, and Inability to Expend Effort Constructively.”  The member was 
entitled to a probationary period to overcome performance deficiencies, but if the member did 
not improve, the command could initiate the discharge after notifying the member and affording 
her an opportunity to submit a rebuttal statement and, if a general discharge was proposed, to 
consult an attorney.   
 
 
ability Evaluation and Disciplinary Action,” stated the following: 
 

Article 12.B.1.e.1. of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Cases Involving Concurrent Dis-

 

 

Disability statutes do not preclude disciplinary separation. The separations described here super-
sede disability separation or retirement.  If Commander, (CGPC-adm) is processing a member for 
disability while simultaneously Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) is evaluating him or her for an invol-
untary administrative separation for misconduct or disciplinary proceedings which could result in 
a punitive discharge or an unsuspended punitive discharge is pending, Commander, (CGPC-adm) 
suspends  the  disability  evaluation  and  Commander,  (CGPC-epm-1)  considers  the  disciplinary 
action.  If the action taken does not include punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 
Commander, (CGPC-adm) sends or returns the case to Commander, (CGPC-adm) for processing.  
If  the  action  includes  either  a  punitive  or  administrative  discharge  for  misconduct,  the  medical 
board report shall be filed in the terminated member's medical personnel data record (MED PDR). 

Article 2.C.11. of the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Manual in effect in 

 
2000 stated the following: 

 
a.  Disability statutes do not  preclude disciplinary or administrative  separation under applicable 
portions of the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M100.6 (series).  If a member is being processed 
for a disability retirement or separation, and proceedings to administratively separate the member 
for misconduct, disciplinary proceedings which could result in a punitive discharge of the mem-
ber, or an unsuspended punitive discharge of the member is pending, final action on the disability 
evaluation proceedings will be suspended, and the non-disability action monitored by [CGPC]. ... 
 
b.  If the court martial or administrative process does not result in the execution of a punitive or an 
administrative discharge, the disability evaluation process will resume.  If a punitive or adminis-
trative discharge is executed, the disability evaluation case will be closed and the proceedings filed 
in the member’s official medical record. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

1. 

2. 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant was discharged for misconduct on October 10, 
2000,  and  knew  that  she  had  not  received  a  medical  separation  on  that  date.   Although  she 
alleged that she did not discover the error in her record until November 13, 2008, her medical 
records show that she had been hospitalized for bipolar disorder several times before her admis-
sion to the hospital on October 5, 2008.  The applicant has not submitted documentation disclos-
ing the date she was first diagnosed as bipolar.  Therefore, it is not clear whether her application 
was  timely  filed.    However,  because  the  applicant  was  discharged  nine  years  ago  and  has 
apparently suffered from bipolar disorder for several years and been hospitalized for it several 
times during that period, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to excuse the possible 
untimeliness of her application and to consider the case on the merits. 
 

The preponderance of the evidence in the record shows that the applicant did not 
suffer from bipolar disorder while she was a member of the Coast Guard and that her non-medi-
cal discharge for unacceptable conduct was neither erroneous nor unjust.  The earliest evidence 
in the record of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder is dated October 5, 2008, eight years after her dis-
charge.  Although in December 1999 one physician’s assistant referred her to a psychiatrist to 
determine whether she had bipolar disorder because she complained of mood swings, the psy-
chiatrist reported on January 27, 2000, that she had no psychiatric diagnosis; that she was psychi-
atrically  fit  for  duty  and  responsible  for  her  conduct;  and  that  no  psychiatric  medications  or 
follow-up were needed.  After another mental examination in June 2000, conducted because the 
applicant made a comment to her supervisor about jumping off a bridge, she was diagnosed with 
an adjustment disorder because she told the doctor that she did not like being in the military, did 
not like to receive orders like a child, and wanted out.  An adjustment disorder is not considered 

3. 

a physical disability and does not entitle a member to medical board evaluation and processing.3  
The applicant’s Coast Guard medical records are presumptively correct, and she has not submit-
ted sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.4   

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  her  misconduct  in  2000  was  caused  by  her  bipolar 
disorder.  The existence of a mental illness does not per se excuse a member from liability for 
her misconduct.  Instead, the deciding factors are whether the member lacked substantial capac-
ity to appreciate the criminality of her conduct and to conform her conduct to the requirements of 
law.5   Following the psychiatric evaluation on January 27, 2000, the psychiatrist reported that 
the applicant’s cognition, insight, and judgment were intact and that she was “fully responsible 
for her actions.”  Thus, even if the applicant had been diagnosed as bipolar before she was dis-
charged from active duty, she would not have been entitled to a medical separation by reason of 
physical disability because administrative proceedings that result in a discharge for misconduct 
supersede the statutes and regulations regarding medical separations.6 

The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was 
misdiagnosed while on active duty or that she suffered from bipolar disorder prior to her dis-
charge from the Coast Guard.  The record before the Board lacks evidence of when she was first 
diagnosed as bipolar.  Therefore, her request should be denied.  However, she may seek further 
consideration of her application within a year upon submission of additional medical evidence of 
the history and duration of her illness. 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

                                                 
3 Chronic adjustment disorders that interfere with a Coast Guard member’s performance of duty result in adminis-
trative  separations  (rather  than  medical  board  processing).    U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST  M6000.1B, 
MEDICAL MANUAL Chap. 5.B.3. (Change 15, Aug. 24, 2000).  
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  See Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent evidence to the contrary, that Govern-
ment officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”).   
5 Rule 706 of the Rules for Courts-Martial, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (1995 ed.)  
6  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST  M1000.6A,  PERSONNEL  MANUAL,  Art.  12.B.1.e.1.  (Change  33,  Sept.  19, 
2000);  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST  M1850.2C,  PHYSICAL  DISABILITY  EVALUATION  SYSTEM  MANUAL 
Article 2.C.11. (July 19, 1996). 

ORDER 

 

 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 
military  record  is  denied.    However,  she  may  seek  further  consideration  within  a  year  upon 
submission of additional medical evidence of the history and duration of her illness. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton