How the alleged 'behavioral problems' of this petitioner are of no comparison to those, (and the way the U.S. Navy handled the 'situation(s)',) of U.S.C.A. for the 8th Cir. Docket No. 95-2158 Appellee Ronald Eugene Henry. Decided March 01, 1996

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : Regarding S. Ct. Rule 10-(a), and (c) , along with the sanctioning such a departure by a lower court as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory powers. How the.alleged "behavioral problems" of this petitioner are of no comparison to those, (and the way the U.S. Navy handled the "situation(s)',) of U.S.C.A. for the 8th Cir. Docket No. 95-2158 Appellee Ronald Eugene Henry. Decided March 01, 1996. Regardless of the current "state of affairs" in this country or world. : , -Mr. Henry was afforded an opportunity for an in persona appearance before the Naval Discharge Review Board. As this petitioner's NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE LETTER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and that this petitioner did not consult with counsel. As where the ELECT WAIVE part of the NPA are clearly evident in how this petitioner was not entitled to the following rights. ; ; That the U.S. C.F.C., and the U.S.C.A. for the Fed. Cir. ignored the exhibits’ regarding the medical consul -tations with psychologist Dr. Hazen, psychologist, and Dr. Golby, and LTC. Dr. James Oaks psychiatrist. How the accusations’ against this petitioner medically, psychiatrically, and through the U.C.M.J., (that wasnot fully explained to this petitioner. As he was "escorted" out of the presentation about the U.C.M.J. while it was being explained to the recruits',) so this petitioner was not properly instructed in the UCMJ. Why was this petitioner denied procedural and civil due process? .Why were all the inconsistencies and errors in the medical records for the petitioner ignored? Why has the Board for Correction of Naval Records reviewed Ronald Henry's case in, "painstaking _ detail," did the BCNR conclude that the evidence this petitioner exhibited was..."insufficient to establish . the existence of probable material error or injustice?" Why does the disposition in U.S.C.A. for the Fed. Cir. show that the appeal was before three circuit judges; when it states right on the disposition PER CURIAM?