ÿWPCG …# VUFa %§ 07­äO 4R f u w@u 0Jµ 0Tÿ 0^S 0h± 0r 0|‹ 0† 0 1u 0d’ U6ö B),DCU AM˜U*åërú Bl 0U‰v~ÞvÓ\ D3/ 0@b AO¢Æñ 0D· D/û B*˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&âõ$¡Ñ€²Ñ Ö€ÿÿÖ EÝ ƒ&¦)ÝÝ  Ýà@°°*ìàÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚÚƒç"X3|x òDóôDõö÷øùDúûÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€6,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó hÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ&)ÝÝ  Ýà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  Ú d(-3¦$©©Ý ƒâõ!ÝÑ€²ÑÝ  ÝPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ Ü ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€!# A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSUZANNE€MONIQUE€SWILLEY€ELY€€€€:€€€€€KNOX€CHANCERY€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€CA€No.€03A01„9707„CH„00255Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€HON.FREDERICK€D.€McDONALDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€CHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ÌKENNETH€RAY€ELY€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ì€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€€€€€:€€€€€AFFIRMED€AND€DISMISSED€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDAIL€R.€CANTRELL,€WITH€CANTRELL,€PRATT€&€VARSALONA,€OF€CLINTON,€ÌTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLANT€ÌÌWM.€STANTON€MASSA,€III,€OF€KNOXVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€pivotal€issue€on€this€appeal€is€whether€or€not€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€its€calculation€of€the€gross€income€of€theÏobligor€for€determining€his€child€support€obligation.ÌÌà àà àOur€review€is€"de€novo"€on€the€record€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€findings€of€factÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€TRAP€Rule€13(d).€€Ö€$ÖWeÏfind€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court,€and€affirm€for€the€reasons€hereinafter€stated.ÌÌà àà àThe€Plaintiff„Appellee,€Suzanne€Ely€(wife)€andÏDefendant„Appellant€Kenneth€Ely€(€husband)€were€divorced€in€1988.€ÏThe€parties€had€two€children,€Monique€aged€seven€and€Christopher,Ïaged€five€at€the€time.€€The€parties€entered€into€a€maritalÏdissolution€agreement€which€provided,€as€pertinent,€that€theÏhusband€purchase€the€wife's€interest€in€a€trucking€business€theyÏjointly€owned€and€operated.€€The€wife€was€awarded€the€custody€ofÏthe€children,€with€visitation€privileges€of€the€husband,€and€heÏwas€to€pay€$350€per€month€as€child€support€and€$1,200€per€yearÏinto€a€trust€fund€for€the€children€until€the€youngest€childÏreached€the€age€of€18€years.€€He€was€also€to€pay€one„half€of€theÏchildren's€medical€and€dental€expenses€which€were€not€covered€byÏinsurance.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€divorce,€the€wife,€on€three€occasions,Ïfiled€contempt€proceedings€against€the€husband€for€failure€toÏcomply€with€the€marital€dissolution€agreement,€which€had€beenÏincorporated€into€the€decree€of€divorce.€€The€first€contemptÏpetition€was€filed€in€October,€1989,€the€second€was€filed€inÏJanuary,€1992,€and€the€third€one€in€1995.€€Each€of€the€petitionsÏalleged€the€husband€had€failed€to€pay€the€wife€his€share€of€theÏmedical€expenses€for€the€children.€€The€third€petition,€however,Ïalleged,€as€pertinent,€that€there€had€been€a€material€andÏsubstantial€change€in€circumstances€since€the€divorce€to€justifyÏan€increase€in€child€support.€€The€wife€alleged€the€husband€wasÏself„employed€at€the€time€of€the€divorce;€he€was€the€sole€owner€ofÏEly€Trucking€Company€and€his€business€and€income€had€increased€inÏthe€interim.€€She€alleged€she€was€entitled€to€an€increase€over€andÏabove€the€guidelines€in€that€husband€had€vested€with€the€parties'Ïchildren€less€than€the€amount€provided€by€either€the€guidelines€orÏthe€final€decree€of€divorce.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€respective€answers€to€wife's€petitions,€husbandÏdid€not€deny€his€indebtedness€to€the€wife€but€denied€he€should€beÏheld€in€contempt.€€In€his€answer€to€the€wife's€petition€for€anÏincrease€in€child€support,€as€pertinent,€he€said,€"The€respondentÏneither€admits€or€denies€that€there€was€been€a€material€andÏsubstantial€change€in€circumstances€such€as€to€justify€an€increaseÍin€child€support€since€original€order€or€that€his€income€hasÏincreased€to€any€extent€since€that€time...."ÌÌà àà àEach€of€the€petitions€filed€by€the€wife€was€referred€toÏa€referee€of€the€chancey€court€for€hearing,€findings,€andÏrecommendations.€€The€referee€held€hearings€and€filed€findings€andÏrecommendations€in€the€first€two€petitions,€finding€the€husband€inÏcontempt,€recommending€judgments€in€favor€of€the€wife,€and€theÏaward€of€her€attorney's€fees.€€Decrees€were€entered€by€theÏchancellor€confirming€the€recommendations€of€the€referee,€andÏthese€matters€are€not€at€issue€on€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àThe€referee€held€a€hearing€on€the€wife's€third€petitionÏfor€contempt€and€modification€of€child€support€in€December,€1995.€ÏHe€filed€a€findings€and€recommendations€order€in€which,€asÏpertinent,€he€said€that,€based€on€the€evidence€and€testimony€ofÏthe€parties,€he€found€the€husband€owed€the€wife€$1,067.27€forÏmedical€expenses.€€He€found€"...the€respondent€is€self„employedÏand€has€failed€to€comply€with€Rule€8€of€the€local€rules€ofÏpractice€for€the€Knox€County€Referee€and€thus€petitioner€isÏentitled€to€a€continuance€to€allow€time€for€discovery€ofÏrespondent's€financial€information."€€The€order€provided€that€allÏother€matters€and€issues€raied€by€the€wife€be€reserved€until€aÏfurther€hearing€to€be€held€on€February€17,€1995.€€An€order€ofÍconfirmation€of€referee's€findings€and€recommendations€was€enteredÏby€the€chancellor.ÌÌà àà àThe€referee€held€a€further€hearing€on€February€27,€afterÏwhich€he€filed€findings€and€recommendations€which,€as€pertinent,Ïheld€that€the€petition€in€contempt€and€the€modification€of€childÏsupport€could€not€be€held€at€that€time€and€set€a€hearing€on€thoseÏissues€for€April€22,€1996.€€He€also€directed€the€husband€toÏfurnish€at€or€before€that€hearing€"his€1099's€from€tax€years€1994Ïand€1995€showing€his€gross€income€for€those€years,€an€itemizationÏand€documentation€of€all€expenses€and€adjustsments€of€his€grossÏincome."ÌÌà àà àThe€record€fails€to€show€a€hearing€was€held€on€April€22Ïbut€shows€a€hearing€was€held€on€June€25.€€The€record€fails€to€showÏthe€husband€furnished€his€1099's€for€1994€and€1995€setting€out€hisÏgross€income€for€those€years€or€that€he€filed€itemization€andÏdocumentation€of€all€his€expenses€as€previously€ordered€by€theÏreferee.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€June€25€hearing€the€referee€enteredÏfindings€and€recommendations.€€As€pertinent,€he€found€"...€uponÏthe€testimony€of€the€Respondent€and€of€other€nonpartyÏwitnesses...the€court€finds€that€the€petitioner's€petition€forÍcontempt€and€for€modification€of€child€support€are€well€foundedÏand€the€best€evidence€of€Respondent's€income€is€loan€documentationÏfor€1994€obtained€from€First€American€National€Bank€and€enteredÏinto€the€record€as€exhibits,€that€Respondent's€credibillity€isÏsuspect,€that€the€Respondent's€gross€income€is€$160,000€perÏyear...."€€He€found€the€husband's€monthly€payments€should€beÏ$2,094€and€all€other€issues€should€be€reserved€pending€husband'sÏappeal€to€the€court.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€entry€of€the€referee's€findings€andÏrecommendations,€the€husband€filed€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€KnoxÏCounty€a€request€for€appeal€and€hearing€in€that€court€on€referee'sÏfindings€and€recommendations€of€June€25.€€He€said€he€disagreedÏwith€the€findings€and€recommendations€of€the€referee€and€they€wereÏnot€supported€by€the€proof€in€the€record.€€He€requested€a€hearingÏbefore€the€court€and€the€entry€of€an€appropriate€order€after€theÏhearing.ÌÌà àà àThe€wife€also€appealed€from€the€findings€andÏrecommendations€of€the€referee€on€the€February€27€hearing€relatedÏto€certain€relief€sought€by€her€which€is€not€now€at€issue€on€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àà àOn€December€6,€the€appeals€of€both€parties€were€heard€byÏChancellor€McDonald,€Chancellor€for€Part€1€for€Knox€County.ÌThe€chancellor€found,€based€on€the€child€support€guidelines,€1240„2„4„.03€December,€1994,€revised€3(a),€and€the€husband's€1995Ïfederal€income€tax€return,€which€was€filed€as€an€exhibit€in€theÏhearing,€that€the€husband's€gross€income€for€1995€was€$132,064,Ïand€he€should€pay€$2,097€per€month€as€child€support€for€twoÏchildren.€€His€monthly€obligation,€which€was€to€begin€from€theÏdate€of€filing€the€petition€for€modification€on€December€6,€1996,Ïtogether€with€interest,€would€be€a€total€of€$26,374.26.€€A€decreeÏwas€entered€in€keeping€with€the€court's€findings€and€the€husbandÏhas€appealed.ÌÌà àà àSince€our€review€on€appeal€is€"de€novo"€on€the€recordÏaccompanied€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€court'sÏfindings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€presented€on€the€trialÏpreponderates€against€such€findings,€we€must€look€at€the€record€toÏdetermine€whether€the€evidence€supports€the€findings€by€the€courtÏor€preponderates€against€his€findings.€ÌÌà àà àRule€26,€TRAP,€requires€the€appellant,€in€support€of€hisÏappeal,€to€timely€file€in€the€appellate€court€a€transcript€of€theÏproceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€Rule€24,€TRAP,€sets€forth€whatÏshould€be€contained€in€the€transcript€which,€in€general,€includesÍall€the€evidence€offered€in€the€trial€court€together€with€all€theÏsupporting€exhibits.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€only€thingÏcontained€in€the€record€is€a€transcript€of€the€argument€of€counselÏbefore€the€chancellor€and€one€intelligible€exhibit,€being€a€copyÏof€the€husband's€1040,€1995€tax€return.ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellant,€in€his€brief,€as€pertinent,€states:€€"TheÏtrial€court's€ruling€required€Mr.€Ely€to€pay€Twenty„five€Thousand,ÏOne€Hundred€Sixty„four€Dollars€($25,164.00)€in€child€support€eachÏyear.€€The€only€proof€entered€at€trial€were€Mr.€Ely's€tax€record,Ï(Exhibits€1€&€2,€December€6,€1996),€which€clearly€show€that€hisÏincome€for€1995€was€a€negative€Eighteen€Thousand€Four€Hundred€andÏTwenty„six€Dollars€($18,426.00)€(Exhibit€2,€December€6,€1996).€ÏTherefore,€the€Appellee€did€not€meet€the€burden€of€proof€necessaryÏto€show€a€material€change€in€circumstances€which€would€justify€aÏchange€in€child€support."ÌÌà àà àAlso,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€show€whatÏevidence€was€before€the€referee€for€his€determination€of€theÏissues€before€him.ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellant's€1040€tax€form€for€federal€income€taxesÏfor€1995€shows€the€Appellant€had€a€total€income€in€1995€ofÏ$732,022.€€His€expenses€of€doing€business€plus€his€claimedÍdeductions€for€tax€purposes€exceeded€his€income€by€$18,426,Ïresulting€in€there€being€no€taxable€income,€and€a€paper€loss€ofÏ$18,426.€€Included,€however,€in€the€expenses€and€deductions€was€aÏclaim€of€depreciation€for€the€year€of€$132,064.Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€guidelines€for€calculating€child€supportÏawards€for€self„employed€obligors,€as€pertinent,€provide:ÌÓÓà8 àGross€income€shall€include€all€income€from€any€sourceÏ(before€taxes€and€other€deductions),€whether€earned€orÏunearned....Income€from€self„employment€includes€incomeÏfrom€business€operations€and€rental€properties,€etc.,Ïless€reasonable€expenses€necessary€to€produce€suchÏincome.€€òòDepreciationóó,€home€offices,€excessiveÏpromotional,€excesssive€travel,€excessive€car€expenses,Ïor€excessive€personal€expenses,€etc.,€should€not€beÏconsidered€reasonable€expenses.€€(Emphasis€ours.)€€Ìà àTenn.Comp.R.€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a)(1994).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€chancellor€very€reluctantly€held€that€this€provisionÏmandates€the€addition€of€the€full€amount€of€the€expenses€claimedÏas€"depreciation"€on€the€husband's€tax€return€to€his€gross€income,Ïstating:€€"So€what€I'm€going€to€do€is€take€his€tax€return,€addÏback€the€depreciation,€and€then€set€the€support€in€accordance€withÏthe€Guidelines,€and€I€think€it's€absolutely€and€utterly€wrong,€andÏthen€you€can€take€an€appeal€from€that.€....€And€I€mean,€I€wish€youÏwell€because€I€don't€like€to€have€to€enforce€unfair,€grosslyÏunfair€laws€like€this."ÌÌà àà àThe€1040€tax€return€fails€to€show€what€the€claimedÏdepreciation€is€for,€nor€was€any€proof€offered€before€theÏchancellor,€and€there€is€none€in€the€entire€record,€which€we€canÏconsider€which€would€establish€the€Appellant€was€entitled€to€claimÏhis€depreciation€even€if€it€were€not€expressly€excluded€under€theÏchild€support€guidelines.ÌÌà àà àSince€the€guidelines€for€fixing€child€support€for€anÏobligor€who€is€self€employed€define€gross€income€as€"income€fromÏbusiness€operations...less€reasonable€expenses€necessary€toÏproduce€such€income,"€then€specifically€provideÏ"Depreciation...should€not€be€considered€reasonable€expenses,"Ïbased€on€the€evidience,€or€lack€thereof,€we€find€the€court€had€noÏalternative€but€to€disallow€the€depreciation€claimed€as€aÏdeductable€expense.ÌÌà àà àAppellant€argues€that€a€substantial€amount€of€the€totalÏhe€claimed€as€"depreciation"€on€his€federal€tax€return€wasÏactually€the€capital€expense€of€purchasing€trucks€for€hisÏbusiness.€€According€to€Appellant,€the€Internal€Revenue€ServiceÏdoes€not€allow€him€to€deduct€as€an€expense€the€cost€of€purchasingÏa€truck€in€one€lump€sum,€but€rather€makes€him€spread€out€the€costÏof€the€truck€over€its€useful€life,€which€expense€is€classified€asÏ"depreciation"€for€income€tax€purposes.€€Thus,€he€argues,€it€isÍunfair€to€disallow€him€to€deduct€a€substantial€capital€expense€ofÏhis€busines,€the€purchase€of€trucks€which€are€obviously€necessaryÏfor€the€operation€of€a€trucking€business,€only€because€he€isÏrequired€to€classify€this€capital€expense€as€"depreciation"€forÏincome€tax€purposes.€€To€do€so€results€in€the€inequitable€resultÏwhich€requires€him€to€pay€child€support€based€on€a€calculation€ofÏ"gross€income"€which€he€does€not€really€have.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€recognize€the€equitable€principles€in€Appellaant'sÏargument€and€it€is€apparent€from€the€transcript€of€the€recordÏbefore€the€chancellor€that€he€agreed€with€the€argument€inÏprinciple€but€he€had€no€alternative€under€the€provisions€of€theÏchild€support€guidelines€or€the€evidence€in€the€record.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€a€well„settled€rule€of€evidence€in€thisÏjurisdiction€that€"the€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€him€who€affirms,Ïnot€upon€him€who€denies."€€Gibson's€Suite€in€Chancery,€FifthÏEdition€ðð€451;€ò òGalbreath€v.€Nolanó ó,€429€S.W.2d€447,€450Ï(Tnn.App.1967)€58€Tenn.App.€260.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€guidelines,€the€trial€court€would€not€haveÏbeen€at€liberty€to€deduct€any€expenditure€claimed€as€a€deductionÏunless€it€was€shown€to€be€"reasonable€expenses€necessary€toÏproduce€such€income"€for€the€business.€€On€the€trial€of€the€case,Íthere€was€no€effort€made€by€the€Appellant€to€show€that€any€of€hisÏexpenditures€were€reasonable€or€necessary€to€produce€the€incomeÏfor€the€business.€€Absent€such€a€showing,€how€can€it€be€said€theÏcourt€was€in€error€in€failing€to€treat€the€uenexplainedÏdepreciation€so€as€to€be€allowed€as€capital€expenditures?€€WeÏthink€the€question€answers€itself.€ÌÌà àà àThe€Appellant€also€states€in€his€brief,€as€pertinent:€Ï"Neither€the€Tennessee€Legislature€nor€the€Child€SupportÏGuidelines€promulgated€by€the€Child€Welfare€Department,€have€seenÏfit€to€either€expressly€exclude€or€authorize€a€deduction€forÏcapital€expenditures.€€The€standard€that€has€been€followed€by€thisÏHonorable€Court€has€been€to€leave€it€to€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court€to€determine€when€and€if€said€expenditures€areÏ"reasonable."€€Citing€the€unreported€case€of€ò òKimble€v.€Kimbleó ó,Ï21€Tenn.€35„7€(Tenn.App.1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€trial€court€should€haveÏconsidered€depreciation€claimed€for€tax€purposes€as€a€reasonableÏand€necessary€expenditure€was€not€an€issue€on€the€trial€of€theÏcase€and€has€been€raied€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€which€theÏAppelllant€is€not€at€liberty€to€do.€€ò òAirline€Construction,€Inc.Ïv.€Barr,€et€al.ó ó,€807€S.W.2d€247€(Tenn.App.1990);€ò òAtkins€v.ÍKirkpatrickó ó,€et€al.,€823€S.W.2d€547€(Tenn.App.1991);€ò òSimpson€v.ÏFrontier€Community€Credit€Unionó ó,€810€S.W.2d€147€(Tenn.1991.)ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€ò òFoley€v.€Dayton€Bank€&€Trustó ó,€696ÏS.W.2d€356€(Tenn.App.1985),€this€court,€in€addressing€theÏconsideration€of€an€issue€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,Ïquoted€with€approval,€at€359,€as€follows:€"The€jurisdiction€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€is€appellate€only,€T.C.A.€ðð€16„4„108€(1980)€andÏit€should€consider€only€such€matters€as€were€acted€upon€by€theÏtrial€court."€€See€ò òIrvin€v.€Binkleyó ó,€577€S.W.2d€677Ï(Tenn.App.1979).ÌÌà àà àThe€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed€and€the€appealÏis€dismissed.€€The€cost€of€this€appeal€is€taxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:€ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.