RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00897

 						COUNSEL:   

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired in the grade of colonel (O-6) and he receive  retroactive back pay and allowances.  

His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 16 August 2012 be removed from his record.

All documents referencing the Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) be removed from his record.

The involuntary curtailment of his Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tour dated 16 August 2012 be removed from his record.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On behalf of the applicant, counsel states that an error and injustice occurred when he was involuntarily curtailed from the NYANG.  Per ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, paragraph 8.5, commanders considering involuntary curtailments are to use all quality force tools available, including referral Office Performance Report (OPR), LOR or Article 15 prior to initiating an involuntary curtailment.  The only quality force tool used against the applicant was an LOR which was issued on the same date as the curtailment notification.  The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to respond and was not given any rehabilitation or corrective period.  

The applicant was prejudiced when he met with The Adjutant General (TAG) and was questioned without counsel present which was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, New York Military Law Section 130.31 and Division of Military and Naval Affairs (DMNA) Regulation 6-1(a).   

The investigation and actions taken by his command resulted in an injustice to the applicant.  There are errors in the CDI which include false allegations, a lack of evidence, inadequate fact-finding, a disregard for circumstances explaining the communication between the applicant and certain individuals and a misapplication of the law.  This should have resulted in relief to the applicant.  The character letters provided are a testament to the kind of leader the applicant was in the NYANG.  

The applicant also suffered additional unjust harm when on 13 November 2014 he was informed he was no longer hired for the officer in charge position for a Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program due to an anonymous letter to the school district stating he was fired for sexual assault.  The program manager of the JROTC program at Maxwell AFB, AL left a voicemail for the applicant that stated he should have informed them of the investigation and that his application was being disapproved.  The LOR and involuntary curtailment should not keep the applicant from obtaining future employment.  The LOR and involuntary curtailment should be removed from his record so that he can show he was not fired at all, let alone for sexual assault, and that he retired.   When considering the loss of the JROTC position and the grade of colonel, the applicant has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the threatened involuntary curtailment.  Had he only received the LOR, he could have continued his service as an AGR and retired in the grade of colonel.  

On 16 August 2012, the applicant received a LOR and notice of intent to curtail his AGR tour based upon a CDI that found he had engaged in misconduct.  The factual basis for the findings stem from statements and e-mail conversations over a twelve year period that state he attempted to engage in an inappropriate relationship.  However, there is no provision in AFI 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional Relationships, for “attempting” to engage in an inappropriate relationship.  The Investigating Officer (IO) performed an inadequate job in collecting facts.   It follows that since the IO’s gathering of the facts was inadequate, her analysis and conclusions were likewise fundamentally flawed.  The IO’s application of the law was also legally incorrect or too confusing to determine the rationale behind her conclusions.  A flawed CDI should not be used as a basis for a reprimand or curtailment of the applicant’s AGR tour.  

The only instance where AFI 36-2909 prohibits a mere attempt to engage in an inappropriate relationship is between a recruiter-recruitee, military teacher-military student or medical/legal professional-airman.  Since none of these allegations pertain to the applicant’s communications, he cannot properly be subject to a reprimand or curtailment on this ground.  Given the CDI does not present any substantial evidence, using a government computer to make a request is not in violation of law or regulation and cannot be deemed a valid basis to issue an LOR or curtailment of tour.  

The CDI does not include comments to the effect of “and some fun afterwards” as referenced in the LOR.  This is a crucial point because the reference obviously raises a suggestion that the fun afterwards is of a sexual nature and hence inappropriate.  Since the comment does not exist in the CDI, it begs the question of why it was alleged at all, much less that there were “systematic” communications of that sort.  Therefore such an accusation should be withdrawn from the LOR and the letter of intent to curtail his AGR tour.  Though at first glance there appears to be an inappropriate sexual connotation to the e-mails referring to a female airman’s eyeglasses as “sexy,” viewed in proper context they are not.  As explained in the applicant’s rebuttal to the LOR, the purpose of the comment was to uplift the airman’s self-esteem and morale during a troubled period in her life.  Her father, the applicant’s high school friend, was recently murdered and shortly thereafter her husband left her for a stripper.  The Board should consider the charismatic nature of the applicant, whereby use of such colorful language would not be inconsistent with innocent intentions.  The evidence demonstrates that the applicant’s apparent request for a drink was as innocuous as similar requests he made to male airmen and officers and civilians, and under the circumstances would not constitute conduct unbecoming an officer or prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The female airman also asserted to the IO that she was neither offended by the use of such language nor viewed the language as anything other than being between friends.

The accusation of the applicant’s response to the comment that she had been “working her tail off” is unfounded and should be discarded.  This accusation supposedly made twelve years ago by the applicant who was then a major is completely and unreservedly false.  Moreover, the circumstances she alleges in which it to have occurred is highly improbable.  She states the applicant made this statement to her while he was the on-scene commander for an event while she was working in the command post.  It is improbable, if not outright ludicrous, that the applicant would utter such a statement on an open radio while in the middle of his duties in the presence of others performing their official functions.  The CDI demonstrates the female airman harbored resentment toward the applicant since he took charge of scheduling for manning the command post in 2007.  The applicant’s statement shows she was resentful that under his command she would be treated equally with her colleagues and would have to work night shifts like others, something she did not want to do and managed to avoid for years.  She also wrongfully blames him for inhibiting her promotion.  

The CDI contains statements from three female airmen who were the spouses of other airmen at the time.  All three painted a picture to the IO that they were highly offended and shocked by the applicant’s behavior.  They implied the applicant’s requests were a pretext for wanting to sleep with them and when rebuffed he used his power to harass or disfavor them.  This is absurd.  Even a brief questioning by the IO of these airmen would have disclosed evidence that their claimed shock is either the result of misperception, feigned, or otherwise being played up in order to retaliate against the applicant.  While there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the deployed spouse who contacted the applicant to stop asking his wife to have a drink with him, there is no evidence to indicate what his wife had told him.  

The applicant has served honorably for 35 years working his way up through the ranks.  He is a colorful character known for being gregarious, outgoing and sociable.  His invitations for drinks and dinner under the circumstances demonstrate that he did not engage in the misconduct alleged.  The sexual connotations ascribed to his e-mails were unfair and incorrect in that they were taken out of context and not properly investigated.  Therefore, the LOR and curtailment of tour should be withdrawn due to lack of evidence.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was discharged from the NYANG in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) effective 30 November 2012 and placed on the Air Force Retired List effective 1 December 2012.  He was credited with 32 years, five months and 14 days for retired pay.

According to the CDI dated 1 August 2012, the applicant was investigated for the following allegations:

Allegation 1.  Abuse of Power.  The applicant used his authority to block promotions and hiring of females and affect critical personnel decisions; he aligned his decisions not according to the code of the United States Armed Forces, but to his personal libido.  He made decisions after an enlisted female did not give into his sexual advances and favored an enlisted member he was known to be having an affair with. Unsubstantiated.

	Allegation 2.  Misconduct.  The applicant used intimidation and threats with enlisted members affecting morale.  The applicant was removed from security forces due to complaints of violence in the work area and moved to be the chief of staff.  That the applicant bent rules for the purpose of furthering his career and sexual conquests.  He sent inappropriate e-mails to younger enlisted females using government accounts and equipment.  Substantiated.

	Allegation 3.  Sexual Harassment.  The applicant blocked promotions and hiring of females who did not give into his sexual advances.  He sent inappropriate e-mails to younger enlisted females and had affairs with younger, married female members.  He based administrative decisions on personal relationships.  Substantiated.

	Allegation 4. Inappropriate Relationship with Subordinates.  The applicant pursued inappropriate relationships with female subordinates in the command post and security forces squadron.  Substantiated.   

On 16 August 2012, the applicant received a LOR from the TAG, NYANG.  The specific reasons for the LOR include that between January 2000 and July 2012, he systematically contacted female enlisted personnel and invited them to join him for drinks, dinner and “some fun afterwards” or words to that effect.  He commented on the appearance of female enlisted members referring to one airman’s eyeglasses as “sexy.”  When another airman stated she had been “working her tail off” he replied inappropriately.  He repeatedly used his government owned network to solicit females.  In one instance he used his government e-mail account to ask an airman “Did you twist and turn last night, and were you very restless. What were your dreams like and was I in them?”  He went on to reply “Yep, you were in my dreams! Nope, I don’t kiss and tell.”  At least two of these female subordinates were the spouses of other enlisted airmen at the time he made his solicitations.  A deployed airman contacted the applicant and requested he cease and desist from contacting his wife.  The LOR further stated that attempting to engage in an unprofessional relationship with an enlisted subordinate undermined his authority as an officer and commander and was in direct violation of AFI 36-2909.  Attempting to engage in a relationship with the wife of a deployed airman goes beyond a mere violation of regulation and constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and is incompatible with being an officer, let alone a commander.  His actions created a hostile work environment in which female enlisted members could not effectively perform their duties out of concern that if they rebuked his advances, their careers, or the careers of their spouses might be affected.  

In a letter dated 16 August 2012, the TAG, NYANG informed the applicant that he was recommending an involuntary curtailment of his AGR tour for cause pursuant to ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, paragraph 8.5.  The reason for the recommendation was that a CDI found he attempted to engage in inappropriate relationships with junior enlisted females, he sexually harassed junior enlisted females by creating a hostile work environment, and engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer and prejudicial to good order and discipline.   

Per Special Order P-002262 dated 12 December 2012, the applicant was discharged from the NYANG effective 30 November 2012 and transferred to the Air Force Retired list effective 1 December 2012 in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and F.     

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1P concurs with the recommendation of NGB/A1PP to deny the applicant’s requests and recommends he remain retired as a lieutenant colonel, the LOR remain in his record and there be no action on the involuntary separation action.  

NGB/A1PP states per the applicant’s voluntary retirement request in accordance with AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members,  the applicant was appropriately retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient supporting documentation to negate the reasons for receiving the LOR.  The CDI documentation and witness statements support upholding the LOR.

The applicant states that an error and injustice occurred when NYANG issued its intent to involuntarily curtail him.  ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, paragraph 8.5 states that depending on the nature of the involuntary curtailment, commanders may consider discharge in lieu of involuntary curtailment.  Additionally, AFI 36-3209, states lieutenant colonels and above must have served at least three years on active duty in that grade; the applicant did not have three years’ Time-in-Grade (TIG).  Therefore, based on his separation/retirement, the retired grade of lieutenant colonel is correct.  The State provided a memorandum from the applicant dated 20 September 2012 in which he requested to retire versus face an administrative discharge.  On 24 September 2012, the Human Resource Officer acknowledged acceptance of the applicant’s request to retire in lieu of the curtailment of his AGR tour.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to remove the official documentation from the applicant requesting retirement in lieu of AGR tour curtailment.  

The applicant also requests his LOR be removed from his record; however, there is no justification or documentation to support such action.  The State leadership acted accordingly per documentation provided in the CDI and AFI 36-2909, paragraph 5, Specific Prohibitions Relating to Officers (Fraternization) which states unprofessional relationships between officers and enlisted members have a high potential for damaging morale and discipline and for compromising the standing of officers.  Consequently, officers have an ethical and a legal obligation to avoid certain relationships and activities.  Officers must not engage in any activity with an enlisted member that reasonably may prejudice good order and discipline, discredit the armed forces or compromise an officer’s standing.  The custom against fraternization in the Air Force extends beyond organizational and chain of command lines.  In short, it extends to all officer/enlisted relationships.

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, requests the Board disregard the advisory opinion.  The advisory opinion avoids and oversimplifies the issues.   The advisory focuses on the applicant’s actions in requesting voluntary retirement which only occurred as a result of due process violations, coercion, improper inducement and Fifth Amendment violations.  The issue is that he was forced to request voluntary retirement in fear of losing everything he had worked so hard for throughout his otherwise stellar career.  

The commander failed to properly adhere to ANGI 36-101, paragraph 8.5.  The applicant’s commander issued the notice of involuntary curtailment recommendation on the same day that the applicant was notified he was receiving an LOR.  Therefore, no quality force management tools were properly used prior to recommending involuntary curtailment.  In fact, the same day the LOR was issued, there was an announcement advertising the applicant’s position as a vacancy.  There was no opportunity to respond to the matters against him and he received no rehabilitation or corrective period.  The command erroneously progressed directly to involuntary curtailment.  They used their recommendations as coercion and intimidation to scare the applicant into requesting voluntary retirement.  Further injustices occurred as the commander relied upon an inadequate and poorly conducted investigation in taking the actions that he took.  The applicant’s military defense counsel addresses the factual and legal errors of the investigation.

The advisory opinion also fails to recognize or respond to the character letters which have been provided to the Board.  A review of these character reference letters will assist the Board in developing a better understanding of the type of leader the applicant was.  The TAG and his commander relied exclusively on the flawed and incomplete investigation and was either not provided character references or failed to consider them.  Counsel requests that the statements be reviewed prior to issuing a determination on the case.  

The advisory opinion fails to address any of the aforementioned concerns.  Instead insists that all the actions taken by the applicant were voluntary when in fact, the applicant was given no other option.  He was belittled, shouted at, intimidated and coerced into taking the actions that he took.  

The applicant served his country honorably and was chased into retirement by two overzealous conspirators with little regard for constitutional protections and adherence to prescribed regulations.  Counsel requests the Board exercise its authority to correct the errors and injustices that have occurred.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBL recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  The LOR was proper and should remain.  Additionally, the applicant has put forth no compelling evidence to suggest his retirement prior to reaching the TIG necessary to retire as a colonel was improper or unjust.  The government has a strong interest in the finality of personnel actions and the applicant has made no showing that would overcome the presumption of regularity in government affairs or that would warrant upsetting his voluntary retirement.  The applicant suffered no injustice by electing to voluntarily retire rather than face a potentially adverse negative administrative action.

The application contains no information to support removal of the LOR.  The applicant was investigated, the investigation substantiated significant allegations and he was issued an LOR in response to the substantiated allegations.  The applicant had the opportunity to respond and he did.  There is no indication of impropriety in the process or any evidence that would rise to the level to overcome the presumption of regularity or the commander’s finding.  Despite counsel’s desire to re-litigate the allegations, the LOR was proper and should remain.

The applicant’s counsel is in error regarding the potential loss of retirement pay.  Absent a punitive discharge from a court-martial, Reserve officers who otherwise qualify for retirement cannot be deprived of retirement pay.  

The applicant argues that since the commander neglected to use all quality force tools available, the intent to curtail his tour was defective.  It would lead to absurd results to require a verbal counseling, a letter of counseling, a LOR and then nonjudicial punishment in every case, especially for significant misconduct or where such tools could not be expected to correct a deficiency.  In this case, there is no quality force tool that would erase that the applicant committed sexual harassment, created a hostile and unprofessional work environment and had an unprofessional relationship and that his continued presence was detrimental to good order and discipline.  Additionally, the applicant provided no compelling evidence that even if less quality force actions had been used that any different result would have occurred.  Finally, by electing to retire, the applicant waived any procedural defects, should they exist.

There is no evidence the applicant made an uninformed or improperly coerced decision to request retirement.  The presence of a threat of negative action is by its very nature coercive but it does not by itself render a retirement request involuntary.  Likewise, the availability to take terminal leave rather than sell it back is not unduly coercive.  Terminal leave is not guaranteed and is subject to command discretion.  The applicant voluntarily retired at the time because after weighing all the factors, he believed it was in his best interest to do so.  He had access to counsel and has not offered proof to show that he was unlawfully coerced into such decision.  The applicant chose to avoid contesting the matter and now once the ability of the government to present a case has been removed, wishes to contest the underlying allegations that were substantiated in the CDI.  It is not the findings of the CDI that are the primary issue in this case but rather the applicant’s decision to retire and whether it was improperly forced or not.  There is no evidence that the applicant’s decision was anything other than a knowing and informed decision based on the substantiated allegations, the likely administrative outcome and his options at the time.  To reopen the underlying allegations would undermine the military’s ability to conduct its affairs efficiently and with finality.  Given the nature of the substantiated allegations against him, there is nothing in the case that indicates the applicant would have been retained had he not opted to retire.

The applicant also presents no evidence to indicate that retirement in the grade of colonel is warranted.  When he retired rather than face administrative action, he requested to delay retirement until 31 December 2012 in order to reach six months’ TIG as a colonel.  The command had no obligation to grant the request and given the nature of the substantiated misconduct, understandably denied the request.  The applicant retired effective 1 December 2012 without reaching six months TIG in the grade of colonel.  However, this is a moot point since 10 U.S.C. § 1370 states that to retire above the grade of major requires three years TIG, not six months.  While there are several exceptions to the three year TIG requirement, there is not one that would apply in this case. 

A complete copy of the MRBL evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, requests the Board disregard the SAF/MRBL advisory opinion and retire the applicant in the grade of colonel and all evidence of the improper LOR be removed from his record.

The advisory opinion avoids the issues raised by counsel and oversimplifies the issues involved in this case.  The applicant only requested voluntary retirement as a result of due process violations, coercion, improper inducement and Fifth Amendment violations.  All of which appear to have been planned and executed by the TAG.  The applicant was intimidated and forced to retire out of fear of losing everything he had worked for throughout his otherwise stellar career since they had already decided to involuntarily curtail his tour as of 30 September 2012.  The commander failed to properly adhere to relevant regulations in jumping straight to involuntary curtailment and the “voluntary” retirement was the product of intimidation and coercion in the absence of counsel.  Therefore, no quality force management tools were properly used prior to recommending involuntary curtailment.  In fact, the same day the LOR was issued there was an announcement advertising the applicant’s position vacancy.  

The LOR was the result of subjective complaints from individuals who waited for an opportunity to get even with the applicant for tough but fair decisions he had to make as a military leader.  The applicant has always been firm, but supportive, of the females who levied complaints against him.  These complaints were poorly grounded and levied as a result of grudges that were held against him for doing his job with nothing more than the good of the service in mind.

The advisory opinion alleges counsel is in error regarding the potential loss of retirement pay.  The issue is not whether anyone has the authority to deprive the applicant of retirement pay.  The issue is that the threat was made in the absence of counsel.  The applicant was threatened with potential loss of his pension and agreed to voluntarily retire to protect what he earned.  He could not be expected to know which threats were valid and which threats could not be enforced.  The fact the threat was made by an attorney, or in the presence thereof, only acts to aggravate the circumstances of the coercion as it is grounded in unethical misrepresentations.  The threats and coercion were substantial and resulted in an erroneous and unjust outcome.  Such faults, when dealing with the career of a colonel with 35 years of military service are substantial enough to overcome the presumption of regularity.

The advisory opinion states that no quality force tool would erase the allegations that were made against the applicant.  The intent of quality force tools, and the directive to use them, is to exercise progressive discipline and to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation regarding the actions and allegations.  The applicant was refused an opportunity at progressive discipline or rehabilitation.  Equity and justice require he receives an opportunity at both.  Additionally, they do not argue the applicant had three years TIG which would have qualified for retirement in the grade of colonel.  Instead, they argue the applicant was unjustly pushed out of his military career after being promoted to the grade of colonel.  

The advisory opinion also fails to recognize the character letters provided.  A review of these reference letters assist in developing a better understanding as to the type of the leader the applicant was.  The character reference letters were either not provided or not considered; instead the decisions against the applicant were based on the flawed and incomplete CDI.  Counsel requests the statements be reviewed prior to issuing a determination.  Counsel requests the Board exercise its authority to correct the errors and injustices that have occurred.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include the additional responses to the Air Force evaluations and character reference letters provided, we are not persuaded corrective action is warranted.  Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, argues the applicant was denied due process rights, that his commander failed to use progressive quality force tools prior to issuing a LOR and initiating an involuntary curtailment of his AGR tour and he was coerced into submitting his voluntary retirement application in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  However, counsel has provided no evidence that any of the allegations noted in the LOR and CDI make him the victim of an error or injustice.  We are persuaded the preponderance of the evidence substantiates the actions of his commander were consistent with Air Force instruction and were within the commander’s discretionary authority.  Counsel also has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the actions of his commander were unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  The CDI and LOR substantiated the applicant engaged in misconduct, sexually harassed his subordinates and participated in an inappropriate relationship.  The applicant’s conduct constituted a significant departure from acceptable conduct.  It is further aggravating that the applicant engaged in this misconduct for over a 12 year period and betrayed the trust the Air Force instills in its officers and overshadowed the positive aspects of his record.  With respect to counsel’s argument that the applicant was coerced into applying for voluntary retirement in the lower grade of lieutenant colonel, we find no evidence this to be the case.  On the contrary, the evidence substantiates the applicant requested voluntary retirement after being faced with administrative actions for his misconduct.  Furthermore, because the applicant did not complete the required three years TIG required to retire in the grade of colonel per 10 U.S.C. § 1370, we find no evidence of an error or injustice in the applicant’s voluntary retirement in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  In view of the above, we find no basis to disturb the existing record and agree with the opinions of the Air Force OPR and SAF/MRBL and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of the requested relief.  

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00897 in Executive Session on 2 and 7 June 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00897 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 February 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Commander’s Directed Investigation Report, 
			  dated 1 August 2012 (withdrawn).
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 5 January 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 January 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 9 February 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBL, dated 15 April 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 May 2016.  
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 27 May 2016.