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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509641C070209
The survey officer concluded that the losses were the result of a lack of timely inventory by the applicant, but recommended that he be relieved of liability while the incoming commander be held financially liable because of his having signed for the property without inventorying it. In the processing of this case, the United States Army Logistics Integration Agency (USALIA) provided an opinion recommending that the applicant be relieved of financial liability. For example, the incoming...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607075C070209
During the period 15 June to 22 July 1994, a 100 percent inventory of the applicants property was conducted pursuant to a change of primary hand receipt holders. The first of the surveys (ROS 02-94) recommended that the applicant not be held financially liable because of serious faults in maintaining property records, and various inaccuracies caused by the trading of inoperable items for new equipment without updating accountable records. The USALIA advisory opinion recommends granting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605969C070209
c. Likewise, the applicant was the primary hand receipt holder for the property on ROS #S-16C-17-95 and failed to properly account for it. His negligence in not properly accounting for the property or using proper supply procedures to issue the property was the proximate cause of its loss. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by: a. relieving the individual concerned of financial liability imposed by ROS #S-16C-14-95 in the amount of $1357.23; b....
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506602C070209
He had been in the AGR program since May 1984 and, although he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y, supply specialist, this was his first assignment as a unit supply sergeant. His deteriorating physical condition severely hampered his ability to perform his duties as a supply sergeant. The ROS was improperly conducted and the survey officers conclusions were not always supported by facts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608842C070209
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 for which a soldier has personal responsibility. Although the applicant may have been responsible from an operational standpoint of coordinating movement of platoon equipment from one area of the Reserve Center to another, this cannot be construed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506542C070209
The applicant requests that he be relieved of financial liability in the amount of $1,480.61 (1 months pay) imposed by Report of Survey (ROS) T12-93, and that all moneys collected be refunded to him. By all accounts, the applicants unit was poorly led and the applicant was an incompetent supply sergeant. Upon completion of his investigation, the survey officer found that the applicants incompetence was the proximate cause of the losses and recommended that he and the unit commander be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051477C070420
On 24 March 1999, the applicant was officially notified that he was being recommended for financial liability to the United States Government in the amount of $475.40 for losses investigated through a ROS. Chapter 3 of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that the Army, by law, may pay claims for amounts due to the applicants as a result of correction to military records; however, the Army may not pay attorney’s fees or other expenses incurred by or on behalf of an applicant in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511255C070209
Although he may not have had direct responsibility for the unit property by way of formal hand receipt documents, he had supervisory responsibility over the junior, full-time AGR NCO who functioned as the supply sergeant; as a supervisor, he should have stepped-in to remedy or, at least surface, accountability problems. The applicants failure to properly discharge his supervisory responsibilities was not the proximate cause of the shortages in unit organizational property. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608154C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That the ROS contains procedural errors in that the ROS officer appointed to conduct the survey was a captain, as was the applicant; the ROS was not completed within the prescribed 30 day time frame; the survey was processed for collection before his request for reconsideration was completed. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507836C070209
It recommends that the applicant be relieved of financial liability and points out the extreme tardiness of the ROS and the apparent forgery of the applicants signatures on the OCIE hand receipt. 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 for which a soldier has personal responsibility. The...