ANDERSON v. BOARD OF PAROLE

JONES, J.

Petitioner seeks review in this court, alleging that the notice of the action of the Board of Parole (Board) to prisoners does not satisfy ORS 144.135. The statute requires the Board to provide written bases to prisoners of its decisions. ORS 144.135 provides:

"The board shall state in writing the detailed bases of its decisions under ORS 144.110 to 144.125."

Petitioner also claims that the challenged order of the Board "fails to meet the standards established by the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act."

Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of burglary in the second degree and one count each of unauthorized use of a vehicle, kidnapping in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. The trial court sentenced petitioner to five years' imprisonment on each of the second degree burglary counts and the counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle and kidnapping. The court imposed 12-year imprisonment sentences on both the first degree burglary and first degree robbery counts and imposed a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence on each. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

The Board did not override the court-imposed 60-month (five-year) minimum sentence and, thus, set petitioner's initial parole release date for November 13, 1990. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Board decision from the bench. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

We first turn to the Board's actions, decisions and records to ascertain whether the statutory requirements of ORS 144.135 have been satisfied. The Board's decision in this and all cases is written on a "Board Action Form" (BAF), which is its "final order." ORS 144.335. The BAF contains a statement of the Board's findings of fact and ultimate conclusion as to petitioner's date of release on parole or, in rare cases, when parole is denied. See OAR 255-35-030.

ORS 144.335 provides:

"(1) When a person over whom the board exercises its jurisdiction is adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the board related to the granting, revoking or discharging of parole, such person is entitled to judicial review of the final order.

"(2) The order and the proceedings underlying the order are subject to review by the Court of Appeals upon petition to that court filed within 60 days of the order for which review is sought. The board shall submit to the court the record of the proceeding, or, if the inmate agrees, a shortened record. A copy of the record transmitted shall be delivered to the inmate by the board.

"(3) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 (8). The filing of the petition shall not stay the board's order, but the board may do so, or the court may order a stay upon application on such terms as it deems proper.

"(4) In the case of disputed allegations of irregularities in procedure before the board not shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Appeals may refer the allegations to a master appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings of fact upon them."

We attach as Appendix I the BAF for this petitioner, and we will interpret that form and its supporting documents. The reader will observe from the BAF that, after identifying petitioner by name and noting that he has been incarcerated at the Oregon State Correctional Institution since November 26, 1985, with an adjusted commitment date to November 14, 1985, because of 12 days' credit for time served in the county jail pending incarceration in the state institution, the Board, on July 10, 1986, set his initial date of release on parole for November 13, 1990.

ORS 144.120 (1) provides that "[w]ithin six months of the admission of a prisoner to any state penal or correctional institution, the board shall conduct a parole hearing to interview the prisoner and set the initial date of release on parole." The Board, which is inundated with approximately 20 such parole date hearings per day, apparently lagged six weeks behind that statutory time requirement, but there is no complaint of delay in this appeal.

The BAF then reflects that petitioner was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree, one count each of vehicle theft, kidnapping in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and the court's sentence for each conviction.

The next entry, reading left to right, sets forth the five-year minimums on the two class A felonies, robbery and burglary in the first degree. The heading "TS DAYS" refers to Time Served Days, and the form contains the name of the sentencing judge. Below the column listing the crimes appears a line:

"A 3 B 2 C 1 D 0 E 2 F 1 H/R 9 CRIME CAT 5 MATRIX RANGE 16 TO 24"

"A 3 B 2 C 1 D 0 E 2 F 1" is the criminal history/risk of petitioner. Attached as Appendix II is the Criminal History/Risk Assessment form, which demonstrates that petitioner (A) had no prior felony or misdemeanor convictions or (B) incarcerations and, obviously, (C) had been conviction-free in the community for three years prior to commitment. The history/risk assessment form reveals that he was under 21 years of age and, thus, received no points under risk category (D). He also (E) had no prior parole or probation failures and (F) had no record of substance abuse. Because the Board found that he had no prior criminal history, his only penalty under history/risk assessment was based on age. The Board set his criminal history/risk at "9."

The Board utilized petitioner's most serious crime of Robbery I in setting the crime severity category at "5." The Board has set crime categories for all offenses, ranging from "1" for such crimes as driving while suspended to "7" for aggravated murder. Combining the robbery crime severity category of "5" with the criminal history/risk assessment of "9" places petitioner in a matrix range where he would normally serve from 16-24 months. The Board can choose to go toward the bottom of that range (to 16) or toward the top of that range (to 24) because of a number of considerations, not the least of which is the present population of penal institutions. ORS 144.780.

ORS 144.780 provides:

"(1) The [Advisory Commission on Prison Terms and Parole Standards] shall propose to the board and the board shall adopt rules establishing ranges of duration of imprisonment to be served for felony offenses prior to release on parole. The range for any offense shall be within the maximum sentence provided for that offense.

"(2) The ranges shall be designed to achieve the following objectives:

"(a) Punishment which is commensurate with the seriousness of the prisoner's criminal conduct; and

"(b) To the extent not inconsistent with paragraph (a) of this subsection:

"(A) The deterrence of criminal conduct; and

"(B) The protection of the public from further crimes by the defendant.

"(3) The ranges, in achieving the purposes set forth in subsection (2) of this section, shall give primary weight to the seriousness of the prisoner's present offense and criminal history. Existing correctional resources shall be considered in establishing the ranges."

The BAF then demonstrates that petitioner does not qualify for the 16- to 24-month matrix because the Board voted not to override the 60-month minimum set by the judge and, therefore, petitioner's release date was set for November 13, 1990.

The Board also considers matters in aggravation and mitigation, if any, in each case. We now set forth the aggravation and mitigation criteria utilized by the Board in this case (see Appendixes III and IV). The BAF shows the Board found that petitioner had engaged in conduct considered by the Board as aggravation under categories "A B H K M." Appendix III, which contains explanations corresponding to the letters, shows that the Board found the following aggravating conduct: (A) production or use of a weapon during the criminal episode; (B) threat or violence toward witness or victim; (H) concurrently imposed convictions not arising out of same criminal episode (the burglary and thefts were unrelated to the kidnapping and robbery); (K) engagement in persistent involvement in similar criminal offenses; and (M) criminal history more extensive or serious than reflected by history/risk assessment score. In fact, the record reveals that petitioner had prior convictions for five counts of theft in the second degree as a juvenile and a conviction for "minor in possession," in addition to alleged crimes, not resulting in convictions, of criminal mischief, burglary in the second degree, theft in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and possession of burglar's tools.

The BAF also demonstrates that petitioner was given credit for mitigation factor "H." Appendix IV explains that this was based on the fact that he was ordered to pay restitution after term of imprisonment.

Returning to the BAF, under the heading "COMMENTS/REASONS," the Board recites that petitioner agreed to proceed without information being provided to the Board pursuant to former ORS 144.210 (repealed by 1985 Or Laws, ch 283, § 1), that his history/risk assessment score and crime severity category were verified and that he agreed with the accuracy of those scores. The form then reflects that Board members Dinsmore, Groener and Hays voted to override the 60-month minimum, but to add a variation for aggravation for a release date of March 13, 1988, and that Board members Jones and Samuelson voted to sustain the 60-month minimum.

The Board rules provide that it takes four out of five affirmative votes by the Board members to override a minimum sentence, OAR 255-35-023 (1), as does ORS 144.110 (2)(a). ORS 144.110 (2)(a) does not specifically require that each member state his or her reasons for making the decision to or not to override a minimum sentence, but ORS 144.135 does include reference to ORS 144.110. Thus, the question is, what statement of detailed bases must be made as to the minimum sentence decision?

The "decision" to be made is when to set the parole release date; it will be set at the expiration of the mandatory minimum sentence unless the mandatory minimum is overridden. The Board did decide not to override the minimum sentence. ORS 144.135 requires a statement in writing describing a detailed basis for that decision. Subsequent to the passage of this statute, the Board adopted its own administrative rules, Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 255, Division 35 — Board of Parole. The rule the Board adopted concerning judicial minimum sentences on prison terms under ORS 144.110 is OAR 255-35-023, which reads as follows:

"(1) The Board shall not release a prisoner before a judicially imposed minimum prison term sentence has been served except when at least four members of the Board find that:

"(a) The court applied the guideline rules incorrectly; or

"(b) The Board has information not available to the court at the time of sentencing; or

"(c) The court's findings, though technically correct, lead to an inequitable result.

"(2) The Board shall state the facts and reasons for its actions and it shall then inform the sentencing court of its decisions and reasons. The Board shall then set an initial parole release date in accordance with rule 255-35-013."

We interpret this rule to mean that the Board may not override a minimum sentence unless four of its members make findings concerning one or more of three specific categories and that, if the Board decides to override a minimum sentence, it is obliged to inform the sentencing court of its decisions and reasons. The rule, although somewhat ambiguous, does not suggest that the Board state the facts and reasons for its actions in not overriding the minimum term. Implicit in that vote is a determination by at least four members of the Board that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the rule were not applicable. We interpret the rule to require the Board to state the facts and reasons for its actions only when four members of the Board find applicable one or more of the three categories listed under subsection (1). Paragraph (a) requires a finding that the court applied the guideline rules incorrectly. Although sentencing judges are not, at this time, bound by guideline rules of the Board, judges sometimes do make findings as to criminal history/risk, crime severity, and aggravation and mitigation factors which subsequently may be found to be incorrect on review by the Board. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the rule are self-explanatory. Therefore, the administrative procedure for minimum sentence review works like this: The Board takes a vote to overrride the minimum sentence. If four votes are not garnered to override, the basis for the decision simply results from the lack of four affirmative votes on that issue. The vote and who made it constitute the basis for the decision not to override. The Board, or the subset voting not to override, need not "come to a point" where they have agreed upon some set of findings of fact and conclusions of law; the absence of four affirmative votes alone determines the Board's decision regardless whether there is any agreement as to why the Board has refused to override. In such a case, the prisoner's parole date is set at the expiration of the mandatory minimum sentence and the criteria, justification or "detailed bases" for such Board action are simply that there are not enough votes to override.

If four members agree to override the minimum sentence, the Board is obligated under OAR 255-35-023 (2) to state the facts and reasons for its actions pursuant to OAR 255-35-023 (1)(a), (b) and (c), and is further obligated to inform the sentencing court of its facts and reasons for the decision. Having agreed to override the minimum sentence, the Board then is obligated to set an initial parole release date in accordance with OAR 255-35-013, which provides:

"(1) Except in those cases under OAR 255-32-025 the Board shall make findings of fact regarding a prisoner's:

"(a) Crime severity rating;

"(b) History/risk score;

"(c) Guideline range;

"(d) Aggravation/mitigation.

"(2) The Board shall then, except as provided by OAR 255-35-030 (parole denial) and 255-38-005 (dangerous offender), establish an initial parole release date and inform the prisoner of that date."

As demonstrated by this case, there was no consensus by the Board members. After evaluating the entire record, two members elected not to override the minimum and three would have. We perceive no purpose to be served by requiring the Board members to state their individual reasons for not voting to override the minimum sentence imposed. Neither the statute nor the Board rules require such statements. In sum, the Board complied with ORS 144.135 by setting forth in writing the bases for its decision under ORS 144.110 to 144.125.

Petitioner's last contention, that the Board's order "fails to meet the standards established by the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act," is without merit. ORS 183.341 requires the Attorney General to prepare model rules of procedure "appropriate for use by as many agencies as possible." Petitioner admits this statute does not mandate that the Board adopt these model rules of procedure, but argues that the legislature intended that the model rules of procedure prepared by the Attorney General's Office should set the standard for all state agencies to follow and that this court should gauge the adequacy of the challenged order upon both the standards set by the Attorney General's Model Rules of Procedure and the statutory requirements of ORS 144.135.

ORS 183.341 provides:

"(1) The Attorney General shall prepare model rules of procedure appropriate for use by as many agencies as possible. Any agency may adopt all or part of the model rules by reference without complying with the rulemaking procedures under ORS 183.335. Notice of such adoption shall be filed with the Secretary of State in the manner provided by ORS 183.355 for the filing of rules. The model rules may be amended from time to time by an adopting agency or the Attorney General after notice and opportunity for hearing as required by rulemaking procedures under ORS 183.310 to 183.550.

"(2) All agencies shall adopt rules of procedure to be utilized in the adoption of rules and conduct of proceedings in contested cases of, if exempt from the contested case provisions of ORS 183.310 to 183.550, for the conduct of proceedings."

The Board has no legal obligation to adopt the Attorney General's model rules. In lieu thereof, the Board has developed and adopted extensive comparable administrative rules of procedure as required by ORS 183.341 (2). None of these rules are challenged in this appeal and, when implemented as they were in this case, satisfy ORS 144.135.

The order of the Board of Parole and the decision of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE BOARD ACTION FORM

AUG 01 1986 NAME ANDERSON, BRIAN ELWOOD DATE ADM 11/26/1985 DOB 06/28/1965 CC PROB ___ SID # 6557166 INST # 13557 ADJ COMT 11/14/1985 RACE _______ DET/NOT ___ INST OSCI GOODTIME 11/16/1993 SEX ________ BR OFF ____ AKA _______________________ EXP DATE 11/16/1997 HGT ________ ADD CONVS ___ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | CASE # | ORS#OFFCLS | CTS | SENTENCE | MAN | | COUNTY | OFFENSE | | MIN SENT | MIN | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 84-1094 | 164.215 CF | 01 | 05/00/00 | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | BURG II | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 84-1229 | 164.215 CF | 01 | 05/00/00 | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | BURG II | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 85-CR-111 | 164.135 CF | 01 | 05/00/00 | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | THEF VEHI | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 85-CR-111 | 163.225 BF | 01 | 05/00/00 | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | KIDN II | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 85-CR-111 | 164.415 AF | 01 | 12/00/00 | 05/00 | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | ROBB I | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | 85-CR-338 | 164.225 AF | 01 | 12/00/00 | 05/00 | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | JOSE | BURG I | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | | | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | | | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | | | | | | |------------------|------------------|--------|--------------|-----------| | | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- | CASE # | CS | SENTENCE | TS | JUDGE | COUNTY | TO | BEGINS | DAYS | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 84-1094 | | 11/18/85 | 012 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 84-1229 | | 11/18/85 | 012 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 85-CR-111 | | 11/18/85 | 012 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 85-CR-111 | | 11/18/85 | 012 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 85-CR-111 | | 11/18/85 | 009 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | 85-CR-338 | | 11/18/85 | 009 | NEUFELD |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | JOSE | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | | | | | |------------------|--------|--------------|--------|---------- | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- A 3 B 2 C 1 D 0 E 2 F 1 H/R 9 CRIME CAT 5 MATRIX RANGE 16 TO 24 DANG OFF _____ SEX OFF _____ HEARING DATE 07/10/1986 ACTIVITY PT ACTION S MOS SET 60 RELEASE DATE 11/13/1990 AGGRAVATION A, B, H, K, M MITIGATION H RESCHEDULE ________ TYPE _____ W/PSYCH _____ PANEL F COMMENTS/REASONS:

INMATE SIGNED ORS 144.210 WAIVER ELECTING TO PROCEED WITHOUT INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE. INMATE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE, BEVERLY ANDERSON. BOARD RECOMPUTED H/R SCORE ACCORDING TO REVISED MATRIX EFFECTIVE 07/15/85 AND FOUND NO CHANGE.

BOARD FINDINGS: H/R SCORE 09; CRIME CATEGORY 05; MATRIX RANGE OF 16 TO 24 MONTHS. INMATE AGREES WITH ACCURACY OF H/R SCORE.

DINSMORE, GROENER, HAYS: OVERRIDE 60 MONTH MINIMUM, APPLY 1 STANDARD VARIATION FOR AGGRAVATION, SET AT 28 MONTHS FOR A RELEASE DATE OF MARCH 13, 1988.

JONES: SUSTAIN 60 MONTH MINIMUM FOR A RELEASE DATE OF NOVEMBER 13, 1990.

SAMUELSON: ABSENT, WILL REVIEW. (SUSTAIN 60 MONTH MINIMUM, ESTABLISHING A RELEASE DATE OF NOVEMBER 13, 1990. AH SAMUELSON 7/14/86)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 OTHER CONDITIONS 9A 9B 9C PO BD 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

TENTATIVE DISCHARGE: 6 MOS $

SIGNATURE, PRESIDING MEMBER /S/ HAYS / MJH DATE 07/14/1986

APPENDIX I 255-039-06/85 MATRIX APPLICATION

CRIMINAL HISTORY RISK ASSESSMENT

Item --------------------------------------------------------------- (A) No prior felony convictions as an adult or juvenile: 3 One prior felony conviction: 2 Two or three prior felony convictions: 1 Four or more prior felony convictions: 0 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- (B) No prior felony or misdemeanor incarcerations (i.e., executed sentences of 90 days or more), as an adult or juvenile: 2 One or two prior incarcerations: 1 Three or more prior incarcerations: 0 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Verified period of three years conviction free in the community prior to the present commitment: 1 Otherwise: 0 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- (D) Age at commencement of behavior leading to this incarceration: DOB: 6.28.65 Age: 20 26 or older and at least one point received in Items A, B, or C: 2 26 or older and no points received in A, B, or C: 1 21 to under 26 and at least one point received in A, B, or C: 1 21 to under 26 and no points received in A, B, or C: 0 Under 21: 0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- (E) Present commitment does not include parole, probation, failure to appear, release agreement, escape or custody violation: 2 Present commitment involves probation, release agreement, or failure to appear violation: 1 Present commitment involves parole, escape or custody violation: 0 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- (F) Has no admitted or documented substance abuse problem within a 3 year period in the community immediately preceding the commission of the crime of conviction: 1 Otherwise: 0 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL HISTORY RISK SCORE: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------

History Crime Offense /Risk Severity Matrix Range CC/CS ------- ------- -------- ------------ -----

Burglary II 9 1 6 to 6 months _____Burglary II 9 1 6 to 6 months cc U.U.M.V. 9 1 6 to 6 months cc Kidnapping II 9 4 10 to 16 months cc Robbery I 9 5 16 to 24 months cc Burglary I 9 3 6 to 10 months cc Prepared by: Total Range:

T. Hammerschmith 16 to 24 months Office: PSR Unit Crime Severity: 5 Date: 5.15.86 Adjusted Commitment Date: _______ Page 2 of 6 Inmate: Anderson, Brian Elwood Inst #: 13557

APPENDIX II 255-019-06/85 AGGRAVATING FACTORS

_____ A. Production or use of any weapon during the criminal episode. ______________________________________________________

_____ B. Threat or violence toward witness or victim. ______________________________________________________

_____ C. Knew or had reason to know the victims were particularly vulnerable (i.e., aged, handicapped, very young). ______________________________________________________

_____ D. Ability to make restitution or reparation and failed to do so. ______________________________________________________

_____ E. Violation of position of public trust or recognized professional ethics. ______________________________________________________

_____ F. Degree of property loss, personal injury or threatened personal injury substantially greater than characteristic for the crime. ______________________________________________________

_____ G. There is a single conviction for a crime involving multiple victims or incidents. ______________________________________________________

H. Concurrently imposed convictions not arising out of same criminal episode. 84.1094C, 84.1229.C, 85.CR.111 and 85.CR.338 all separate

_____ I. Verified instances of repetitive assaultive conduct. ______________________________________________________

_____ J. More than 3 trust violations in last 5 years as relates to Item E of the Matrix computation. ______________________________________________________

_____ K. Persistent involvement in similar criminal offenses. ______________________________________________________

_____ L. Repetition of behavior pattern which contributes to criminal conduct (e.g., return to drug or alcohol abuse). ______________________________________________________

_____ M. Criminal history more extensive or serious than reflected by history risk score. ______________________________________________________

_____ N. Pursuant to a Guilty or No Contest plea, other crimes were dismissed or not prosecuted. ______________________________________________________

_____ O. New criminal activity while on escape or reduced custody status. ______________________________________________________

_____ P. Persistent criminal misconduct while under supervision. ______________________________________________________

_____ Q. Other. _______________________________________________

Inmate: ANDERSON, BRIAN ELWOOD Inst #: 13557 Page 5 of 6

APPENDIX III 255-018-06/85 MITIGATING FACTORS

_____ A. Victim provoked crime to a substantial degree, or other evidence that misconduct by victim contributed to the criminal episode. ______________________________________________________

_____ B. Special effort on the part of the perpetrator to minimize the harm or risk. ______________________________________________________

_____ C. Peripheral involvement in the criminal episode (e.g., passive accessory). ______________________________________________________

_____ D. Sustained effort to make restitution or reparation. ______________________________________________________

_____ E. Degree of property loss, personal injury or threatened personal injury substantially less than characteristic for the crime. ______________________________________________________

_____ F. Evidence of withdrawal, duress, necessity or lack of sustained criminal intent. ______________________________________________________

_____ G. Evidence of reduced responsibility or lack of mental capacity (e.g., mental retardation which is insufficient to constitute a defense, but is indicative of reduced culpability).

______________________________________________________

H. Ordered to pay restitution after term of imprisonment. See p. 1 this PAR for details

_____ I. Successful period of community supervision, at least 24 months. ______________________________________________________

_____ J. Effort to deal with problems associated with past criminal conduct, (e.g., successful completion of treatment program, abstinance from substance abuse). ______________________________________________________

_____ K. Evidence of no new criminal activity while on escape or abscond status. ______________________________________________________

_____ L. Criminal history less extensive or serious than reflected by history risk score. ______________________________________________________

_____ M. Consecutive sentence imposed for convictions resulting from a single criminal episode. ______________________________________________________

_____ N. Probation violation is non-criminal in nature and not indicative of ongoing criminal pattern. ______________________________________________________

_____ O. Other. _______________________________________________

Inmate: ANDERSON, BRIAN ELWOOD Inst #: 13557 Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX IV 255-017-06/85