IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012603 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012603 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012603 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 military records be corrected to reflect a transfer of his Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits to his son. 2. The applicant states he was not advised or informed that he was required to make the transfer of eligibility application before his retirement. Information about this critical point of transfer timing was not disclosed in multiple written communications he had with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish his eligibility for education benefits. During the nine duty days in May 2012 that he was on orders to perform pre-retirement responsibilities, he received some minimal education benefit counseling. However, he was never advised that he was required to make this transfer before his final separation from the Army after 32 years of active and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) service. 3. The applicant provides: * A personal letter to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) * VA letter, dated 23 June 2010 * His letter to the VA, dated 20 December 2010 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending 21 May 2006 * DD Form 214, ending 30 June 2007 * VA letter, dated 7 March 2011 * Orders for 13 days of pre-retirement activities, dated 3 April 2012 * Charts on VA Benefits and Services, Briefing for Transitioning Service Members * A Compendium of Information - Retirement Information The Adjutant General Directorate Reserve Components Retirements * Department of Defense (DoD) Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003, Post-9/11 GI Bill, dated 22 June 2009 * DoD Fact Sheet Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability * DoD Instruction 1341.13, Post-9/11 GI Bill, dated 31 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant is a retired USAR Colonel (COL)/O-6. 3. Orders 12-115-00001, Headquarters, 7th Civil Support Command, dated 24 April 2012, reassigned the applicant to the Retired Reserve effective 1 June 2012. 4. In his personal letter to the Board the applicant states he was neither advised nor informed that he was required to make the transfer of eligibility application before his retirement. Information about this critical point of transfer timing was not disclosed in multiple written communications he had with the VA to establish his eligibility for education benefits. During the nine duty days in May 2012 when he was on orders to perform pre-retirement responsibilities, he received some minimal education benefit counseling. However, he was never advised that he was required to make this transfer before his final separation from the Army. a. He applied to the VA in 2010 to establish his eligibility for educational benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. On 23 June 2010, the VA responded, indicating that he needed to make an election between receipt of educational benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill or the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP). On 21 July 2010, he forwarded his election to receive benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This election letter, with an accompanying eight pages of program descriptions and comparisons, did not advise him that transfer of eligibility to my Defense Enrollment Eligibility System (DEERS)-enrolled dependent son had to be made before he retired. b. On 21 October 2010, he received a VA certificate of eligibility for Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits. The VA determined that he was entitled to receive 70% of the benefits based upon his length of eligible service on active duty. Because the VA calculation of eligibility did not include all of his post 9/11 active duty service, he forwarded two DD Forms 214 to establish his greater eligibility. The three­page 21 October 2010 VA correspondence did not advise him that he must make a transfer of eligibility election to his dependents before retirement. Nor did the VA correspondence inform him that if no election was made before retirement/final separation this entitlement would be forfeited forever. This VA letter did state that further information, "available only to military members, "was available on a VA website. His primary objective at the time was to ensure all of his creditable active duty service was applied to establish his complete Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits. c. On 7 March 2011, the VA issued him a corrected certificate of eligibility for Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits indicating that he was eligible to receive 90% of the benefit. This seven-page letter from the VA contained many details about the benefits available under the Post 9/11 GI Bill and changes to the program by a recent modification of the law. It also contained an explanation of what kinds of active duty training qualified for consideration. However, the letter did not contain instructions or advisement concerning the need to make a transfer of eligibility election prior to his final separation or retirement d. On 20 May 2012, he reported for the last time on active duty to his assigned USAR unit, the 7th Civil Support Command, in Kaiserslautern, Germany. He was on annual training orders to perform "pre-retirement activities". At that time, in his civilian capacity, he was serving at the U.S. Embassy, New Delhi, India. Working so far from any U.S. military installation, there were few pre-retirement activities he could complete in advance of his annual training. During the nine duty days he served in Kaiserslautern, he was fully engrossed with the separation process. In addition to conducting a multi-day retirement physical and dental examination, he was busy with writing and processing final officer evaluation reports (OERs), noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs), and awards for the Soldiers he rated or senior rated. He had his own OER Support Form and OER to finalize. He performed mandatory training, turned in all his TA-50 and accountable items, and completed military pay and administrative paperwork for retirement. He mailed his excess personal gear back to India via the APO. His pre-separation activities were extremely compressed, chaotic, and rushed. e. He did attend an afternoon pre-retirement seminar provided by the 21st Theater Army Command Transition Assistance Center. After the briefing, he requested and received the power point slides used in the briefing. The slide briefing discussed many valuable and important elections and decisions to be made by retiring soldiers. Dozens of slides discussed the various educational programs available to veterans. Slides 105-111 specifically addressed the transfer eligibility requirements of Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. He noted with satisfaction that his minor son met all of the requirements to be eligible to use his educational benefits. None of the slides, with their myriad of details, contained any notice that before retiring a soldier must make an election to transfer eligibility of educational benefits to eligible family members. f. Because retirement from the USAR is very different from retirement from the active military, he had available to him other sources of information particularly valuable to the Reserve Soldier. An example of this is the official Compendium of (Retirement) Information, made available by the Adjutant General Directorate, Reserve Component Retirements, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (TAB F). Another is the Military Times 2012 Insider Guide to the Guard and Reserve (http://ec.militarytimes.com /guard-reserve-hand book). Neither of these two publications, official and unofficial, address transfer of eligibility of education benefits. Neither publication advises the Soldier that before retiring he or she must make an election to transfer eligibility of educational benefits to eligible family members. g. Institutionally, the Post 9/11 GI Bill was implemented with an interim DoD "Directive Type Memorandum 09-003, "Post-9-11 GI Bill, "June 22, 2009, as amended". Attachment 1, paragraph 3.g. of the directive required the Services to "Provide active duty participants and members of the Reserve Components with qualifying active duty service individual pre-separation or release from active duty counseling of the benefits of the post 9/11 GI Bill and document accordingly." He never received individual pre-separation counseling on the requirement to make a transfer election to my dependents before separation. Additionally, DoD's own official three page fact sheet entitled "Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability" makes no mention of this requirement. The DoD interim guidance was finally made permanent in 2013 with a DoD Instruction containing the same requirement for individual Soldier counseling of the benefits of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. That it took almost four years (instead of the mandated 180 days) for DoD to codify this complex transfer entitlement of the GI Bill may account for some confusion and incomplete implementation in the field. h. In conclusion, he respectfully requests that the ABCMR allow him to make his election now to transfer educational benefits he earned under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to his dependent son. Anyone who has served with him during his long Army career, or his other careers as a Department of the Army civilian and now as a Foreign Service Officer in the Department of State, will testify to his devotion to family. He would have transferred this benefit to his son before he retired had he known of this requirement. He was not aware at the time of his retirement of the requirement to make this election nor was he aware of the consequences for failing to do so. 5. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Finance and Incentives Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY. The opining official recommended disapproval and stated: a. Recommend disapproval of the applicant's request to transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits and to increase the percentage payable rate. Public Law 110-252 establishes legal limitations on the transferability of unused Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. Further, section 3020, Public Law 110-252, limits eligibility to transfer unused benefits to those members of the Armed Forces who are serving on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve on or after 1 August 2009, have at least six years in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status and no current negative action flag, commit to the service obligation, and transfer benefits to the dependents through the Department of Defense's Transfer of Education (TEB) website, http://milconnect.dmdc.mil. All benefits must be transferred before the Service Member separates or retires. b. The Post 9/11 GI Bill is a benefit for the Soldier as a reward for service during a time of conflict. The option to transfer education benefits to a dependent is considered an incentive, not a benefit. The transfer incentive was included in the statute for the express purpose of recruitment and retention. It is neither a reward for service nor a transition benefit. Therefore, the incentive requires that the Soldier commit to and fulfill additional service, in most cases, from the TEB request date. c. Soldiers receive counseling on all GI Bills, including the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefit and the TEB incentive at various venues throughout the Soldier's career (in/out-processing at Education Centers, Commander's Calls), upon demobilization or release from active duty (REFRAD), and during the last year before separation or retirement (Soldier for Life (SFL)-Transition Assistance Processing (TAP)). Soldiers have had access to and received counseling on GI Bill benefits through SFL-TAP (e.g., ACAP XXI or TAP XXI) since 2002 on-line and in-person. Soldiers are required to access SFL-TAP on-line initially and follow-up in person at the SFL-TAP Centers. d. The TEB incentive does not require a formal one-on-one counseling, group counseling, nor a reduction in pay to make oneself eligible. A Soldier acquires TEB eligibility as stated in paragraph 1 and makes dependents eligible by awarding at least one month to the dependent via the TEB website and fulfilling the TEB service obligation. e. The applicant had three years to research and obtain the eligibility criteria for the TEB incentive through DoD and other channels before his retirement on 1 June 2012. He was not restricted to his last few months in the Selected Reserve to obtain this information. He should have obtained the TEB eligibility criteria through the Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum 09-003, dated 22 June 2009, Attachment 2, paragraph 3a(3), the Department of the Army Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum, paragraph 17a(4), DoD, DA, and HRC websites, various briefings at the installation level, and briefings through SFL­ TAP. He should have used the Department of Defense and Department of the Army resources available to him. f. All of the TEB information available to him included the requirement to transfer while either in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status and the possible requirement to serve an additional service obligation. Specifically, the DA Post 9/11 GI Bill Policy Memorandum, paragraph 17 (second sentence) stated, "For the purposes of transferability, Armed Forces include all active duty service and all Selected Reserve service regardless of branch of service or component." (Please note only certain sections of Active Duty qualify under Title 10). Also, paragraph 17g(1) stated, "Time for Transfer. A Soldier approved to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section may transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed." g. The applicant stated in paragraphs 2a-c of his ABCMR application that the VA didn't inform him of TEB in the VA correspondence during May-July 2010 and in March 2011, and thinks the VA should have informed him. However, he didn't inquire with the VA about TEB, but about establishing eligibility for his usage and the percentage payable rate for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Therefore, VA's correspondence to him was accurate in addressing his request for his eligibility. He was not limited to information in the VA correspondence to make himself aware of the TEB eligibility criteria. h. He stated in paragraph 2e of his ABCMR application that the VA slides did not state he had to request TEB before retirement. The VA slides he provided showed Service Member eligibility differing from TEB eligibility for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The VA slides correctly stated the differences. The VA slides correctly stated the TEB requirement to commit to serve four more years or the years required by military rules or retirement. Therefore, any Service Member interested in TEB would have to inquire further regarding eligibility since a Service Member can only commit for these timeframes when the Service Member is either in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status. At that time he should have inquired with the Army's TEB Service Representative or the various policies available to him. He was not limited to information in VA slides to make himself aware of the TEB eligibility criteria i. He stated in paragraph 2f (first paragraph entitled "2f") of his ABCMR application that the U.S. Army Human Resources Command Reserve Component Retirements-A Compendium available to Soldiers throughout their career. It is not the responsibility of the HRC RC Retirements-A Compendium of Information, nor the Military Times 2012 Insider Guide to instruct on TEB. Other military sources as cited earlier in this memorandum instruct on TEB eligibility criteria. j. If the applicant had submitted TEB while in Active Duty or Selected Reserve status between 1 Aug 2009-31 May 2012, he would have incurred no TEB service obligation. He would have known this if he had inquired further regarding the TEB eligibility criteria. During the SFL­ TAP briefings which included the VA briefing, he was instructed regarding the possibility of committing up to four years for TEB. He would have needed to inquire about the possibility of an additional commitment while in Active Duty status or Selected Reserve status. However, he didn't inquire further and didn't submit a TEB request during this timeframe as required by law and policy. k. As of 31 May 2012, at least 150,735 Soldiers had been approved for TEB and 23,000 had been rejected for TEB. Sufficient information was available. l. Public Law 110-252 excluded Annual Training, Title 10, U.S.C. section 12301(b) service from the Post 9/11 GI Bill, so his percentage payable rate cannot be increased. m. On the TEB website, the Soldier must acknowledge and click on nine statements in the TEB website before submitting the TEB request. Statements "d" and "e" pertain to the Soldier agreeing to serve the TEB service obligation and a possible overpayment if the TEB service obligation is not fulfilled. n. This office sympathizes with the applicant; however, the time for him to make himself aware of TEB eligibility criteria was during his time in the U.S. Army. TEB is an incentive, not a benefit. Instead, he waited three years after he was eligible for TEB to begin researching TEB eligibility criteria. o. In April 2011, the ABCMR and the Department of the Army G-1/Directorate of Military Personnel Management/Enlisted Professional Development Branch (Post 9/11 GI Bill policy proponent) agreed that any Soldier who retired after 1 Aug 2009 through the next 90 days or was on terminal leave during the first 90 days and subsequently retired may not have received sufficient information during this timeframe to submit a TEB request. This timeframe is referred to as the "TEB 90-day implementation phase." Any Soldier retiring within this timeframe would have to submit a request for relief through the ABCMR. Any Soldier retiring after this timeframe is considered as having sufficient time to have had access to TEB incentive information. The applicant retired on 31 May 2012, which was not within the TEB 90-day implementation phase; therefore, he is considered as having sufficient time to research the TEB incentive. 6. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for his review and comment. In his response he: a. He respectfully requests the HRC advisory opinion be rejected. The premise of the HRC advisory opinion is that it was his obligation "to research and obtain the eligibility criteria," specifically, the requirement that a Soldier making a transfer of eligibility benefit (TEB) do so before retirement or release from active duty (HRC advisory opinion, para. 2d). b. The HRC opinion states that he "should have used the Department of Defense and Department of the Army resources available to [me]" (HRC advisory opinion, para. 2e). The HRC opinion seeks to shift the burden to him of "making [myself] aware of the TEB eligibility criteria." This purported transfer of responsibility contradicts the only official DoD policy guidance regarding TEB eligibility at the time of his retirement, Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-003 (dated 22 June 2009). That policy guidance places the burden of providing counselling on the benefits of the Post 9/11 Bill on the service concerned, not on the individual Soldier. c. Paragraph 3g of DTM 09-003 states: "the Secretaries of the Military Departments shall...Provide active-duty participants and members of the Reserve Components with qualifying active duty service individual pre-separation or release from active duty counselling on the benefits under the Post 9/11GI Bill and document accordingly". d. The Army did not provide him individual pre-separation counselling regarding the requirement to make the TEB election prior to retirement. The Army did not document that counselling on the benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill was provided to him. e. The HRC advisory opinion interprets that the individual counselling and documentation requirement of DTM 09-003 was fulfilled by an afternoon group pre­retirement seminar. "In the Department of the Army, the SFL-TAP process fulfills this requirement and he received this during his Annual Training tour in April 2012" (HRC advisory opinion, para. 2k). As stated in his application to the ABCMR, the 247-slide briefing provided some information on the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Slides 105-111 specifically addressed some aspects of the transfer eligibility requirements of post 9/11GI Bill benefits. None of the slides, however, with their myriad of details, contained any notice that before retiring a Soldier must make an election to transfer eligibility of educational benefits to eligible family members. If this briefing fulfilled the individual counselling and documentation requirement of DTM 09-003, as opined by HRC, then the briefing failed to include and inform him of a critical requirement. He detrimentally relied upon this briefing to inform him of his Post 9/11GI Bill benefits, including the issue most important to him - the transfer of his educational benefits to his dependent son. f. During the era of his retirement, the DoD guidance regarding the requirement to make the TES election before retirement was poor or nonexistent. DoD's own official three page fact sheet entitled "Post-9/11GI Bill Transferability" makes no mention of the election timing requirement. The 2009 DoD interim guidance of DTM 09-003 was finally made permanent in 2013 with a DoD Instruction containing the same requirement for individual soldier counseling of the benefits of the post 9/11GI Bill. It took almost four years (instead of the mandated 180 days) for DoD to codify this complex TES benefit and issue a DoD Instruction, rescinding the interim guidance of DTM 09-003. The instruction was issued one year after I retired. The HRC advisory opinion admits that the Army's implementation was faulty. g. In conclusion, he respectfully asks that the ABCMR reject the recommendation of the HRC, and that the Board exercise its mandate to correct errors and injustice committed by the Army pursuant to 10 USC section 1552. The Army had a statutory and policy directive requirement to provide me individual pre-separation counselling regarding the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits that he had earned from his active duty service in the Army. A critical piece of that counselling was the requirement to make a TEB election while he was still on active duty, and to counsel him that the failure to transfer his benefits while on active duty would constitute a waiver of his rights to transfer those benefits in the future. The Army failed to properly and individually counsel him and document accordingly regarding his Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits. h. He also asks that the ABCMR compare his case to N________ R. T_______, Ill vs. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-1328, USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The facts in that case, decided after he had made his application to the ABCMR, are virtually identical to my own case. REFERENCES: 1. On 22 June 2009, the DoD established the criteria for eligibility and transfer of unused education benefits to eligible family members. The policy states an eligible member is any member of the Armed Forces on or after 1 August 2009 who, at the time of the approval of the individual's request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance under this section, is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill and: a. has at least 6 years of service in the Armed Forces on the date of election and agrees to serve 4 additional years in the Armed Forces from the date of election; or b. has at least 10 years of service in the Armed Forces (active duty and/or Selected Reserve) on the date of election, is precluded by either standard policy (service or DoD) or statute from committing to 4 additional years, and agrees to serve the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute; or c. is or becomes retirement eligible during the period 1 August 2009 through 1 August 2013. A service member is considered to be retirement eligible if he or she has completed 20 years of active duty or 20 qualifying years of Reserve service. 2. The policy further states the Secretaries of the Military Departments will provide active duty participants and members of the Reserve Components with qualifying active duty service individual pre-separation or release from active duty counseling on the benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and document accordingly and maintain records for individuals who receive supplemental educational assistance under Public Law 110-252, section 3316. 3. On 10 July 2009, the Army released the Post-9/11 GI Bill Implementation Policy which identified and established responsibilities, eligibility criteria, benefits, and detailed guidance on the administration of the program. The purpose of this policy is to implement the Post 9/11 GI Bill in order to enhance the Army’s recruiting and retention programs. The policy further states, in pertinent part, that the Commanding General, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, will: a. Provide the day-to-day management of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. b. Provide for training and reference materials to installation Army Education Center personnel and the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. c. Provide, as needed, counseling to all Soldiers with inquiries regarding their education entitlements. d. Conduct mandatory education benefits counseling for all Soldiers separating from the Army as required by Title 10, U.S. Code section 1046, no later than 150 days before separation date. Counselors advise Soldiers but have no authority to make benefit determination. The VA is the administrator of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program and is responsible for establishing eligibility and payment amounts. Record the following counseling statement on DA Form 669 after completion of mandatory counseling: "In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code section 1046 (Mandatory Benefits Counseling), I have received individual counseling concerning my Veteran's educational benefits." e. Require Soldier's signature attesting to the receipt of counseling. 4. The DoD, military departments, and the VA conducted a public campaign plan on the TEB that generated communications through military, public, and social media venues. 5. The VA Benefits web page, www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/post911_transfer.asp, under Education and Training in the Transfer Post 9/11 GI Bill Benefits to Spouse and Dependents, Available Benefits and Eligibility Section it states, "Transfer requests are submitted and approved while the member is in the Armed Forces." DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant was fully eligible to transfer his education benefits under the TEB prior to retirement, but did not attempt to do so. The program was implemented in July 2009. The applicant retired on 1 June 2012. 2. The DoD, the VA, and the Army conducted a public campaign plan that generated communications through military, public, and social media venues. The information was published well in advance with emphasis on the criteria. While there may have been some confusion during the early stages after the implementation, he retired over 8 months after the program was implemented. However, there is no evidence which shows he attempted to transfer his education benefits to his dependent(s) prior to his separation. 3. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant contends he was never informed that he must transfer education benefits while still on active duty. 4. The facts in the case of N________ R. T_______, Ill vs. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-1328, USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division are different in that the plaintiff provided evidence from his unit showing that information pertaining to the TEB option under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was not included in his retirement briefing or retirement application and the plaintiff was not individually informed or counseled regarding the benefits. 5. The applicant had three years to research and obtain the eligibility criteria for the TEB incentive through DoD and other channels before his retirement on 1 June 2012. He was not restricted to his last few months in the Selected Reserve to obtain this information. 6. The requirement to request transfer of Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits while in the armed forces is not so obscure; it is readily available on the VA benefits webpage. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012603 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012603 12 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2