APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be relieved of financial liability in the amount of $1,779.00 imposed upon him by Report of Survey (ROS) MA-81-92 for the loss of two word processors and a printer valued at $15,580; that any moneys previously collected from him be returned.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he assumed accountability for the property by signing the hand receipt, he was given two DA Forms 2407, Maintenance Request, showing that the word processors were turned-in to the maintenance shop for technical inspection.  When he conducted a joint inventory with his replacement during the period 4-8 May 1992, the items could not be accounted for and the incoming hand receipt holder would not accept the DA Forms 2407 in lieu of the property.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

In 1990, the applicant, a staff sergeant, assumed duties as the personnel (S-1) noncommissioned officer (NCO) for a base support battalion in Germany.  At the time he assumed his duties, he signed the S-1 property hand receipts (hand receipt #10 and #11 on 6 April 1990 and 23 October 1990, respectively) which included two Lanier word processors and an LQ printer.

Between April 1990 and May 1992 when he relinquished his duties as S-1 NCO, the unit property book officer attempted to get the applicant to update his hand receipt at periodic intervals, but he only complied once (March 1991).  When the shortages were noted during the May 1992 joint inventory, an ROS was initiated.

An ROS survey officer was appointed and an investigation was conducted.  The survey officer noted that the applicant signed for the missing property and had no explanation for the missing printer and two Maintenance Request forms to account for the word processors.  The survey officer checked with the local Property Book Office and determined that the word processors had been turned-in for inspection on/about 9 November 1989 and returned on/about 26 May 1990.

The applicant was found to be negligent in his responsibilities toward the equipment because he did not update his hand receipts and never conducted a required 100 percent inventory until the joint inventory with his replacement.  He was found liable for the missing equipment and assessed 1 months’ basic pay of $1,779.00.

The applicant rebutted the ROS and requested reconsideration to no avail.  The ROS was processed and collection efforts were begun against the applicant.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained (COPY ATTACHED) from the U.S. Army Logistic Integration Agency (USALIA).  The USALIA found no administrative or procedural discrepancies sufficient to reverse the assessment of financial liability and opined that the losses occurred during the applicant’s tenure as S-1 NCO.  They recommended continuation of the financial liability assessed against him.

Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 735-5 states that the Government may impose a finding of pecuniary liability whenever negligence or willful misconduct is found to be the proximate cause of any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property.  The total amount of pecuniary liability for soldiers will be established as the equivalent of 1 month's basic pay at the time of the loss, or the actual amount of the loss to the Government, whichever is the lesser amount.

The Consolidated Glossary for AR 735-5 defines negligence as simple or gross, with simple negligence being the failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances.  Direct responsibility is the obligation of a person to ensure that all Government property for which he or she has receipted for, is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody and safekeeping are provided.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement

2.  The applicant signed the S-1 hand receipts in April 1990 assuming responsibility for the missing equipment.  Although he was required to do so on a semi-annual basis, he only updated his hand receipt once (in March 1991); he did not show the appropriate level of care for the accountability of his property.

3.  The ROS determined that the two word processors were submitted to maintenance in November 1989 and returned in May 1990.  No explanation was ever given for the missing printer by either the applicant or the ROS survey officer.

4.  The USALIA opinion recommends maintaining financial liability against the applicant.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director