| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
2. The applicant requests that the finding of pecuniary liability in the amount of $631.50, imposed by Report of Survey (ROS) 33-00, be reversed and that any monies previously collected be refunded to him.
3. The applicant states that there was no evidence of neglect on his part; that he was issued the equipment in the field, at night, under extremely stressful conditions; that he is unsure whether all of the equipment was on hand when he signed for it.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he is a staff sergeant (SSG/E-6). At the time of the loss of equipment, he was assigned to Company B, 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. On 6 April 2000, his unit was participating in a field exercise and the applicant and his platoon were constructing obstacles. At approximately 2130 hours, he was called from the construction site to the company command post (CP) to pick up rations and MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement Simulation) gear. The items were sitting on the ground beside a vehicle. The applicant signed a hand receipt, loaded the equipment onto his vehicle, and went back to his platoon's work site. When he got back to the work site, he issued the MILES gear to his men. When the field exercise ended, the MILES gear was collected and the applicant was told that he was missing three items valued at $631.50.
5. The subject ROS was initiated and the applicant explained that he and his platoon had been very busy; that he had been called to the company CP to pick up food and equipment for his men; that it was late at night and very dark and he conducted a hasty inventory, loaded the equipment, signed the hand receipt, and returned to his platoon. He stated that he returned all equipment he was issued and did not believe that he had been issued the missing equipment. The ROS found him negligent in caring for the equipment and assessed financial liability for the loss.
6. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG), Headquarters, US Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia. It states that the applicant should be relieved of financial liability for the loss of MILES gear. The rationale is that neither the applicant, nor his driver saw the missing gear when it was allegedly issued. Also, the gear was issued under less than ideal circumstances, that is in a field environment, in the middle of the night, during a stressful period of exercise play. Finally, the applicant was not negligent in his handling of the gear. The DCSLOG opinion goes on to speculate that the equipment was missing before it was ever issued to the applicant. The applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion and concurred with it.
7. 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.
8. 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. Gross negligence is defined as an extreme departure from the course of action to be expected of a reasonably prudent person, all circumstances being considered, and accompanied by a reckless, deliberate, or wanton disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the act.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was an engineer platoon sergeant participating in a stressful field exercise. He and his platoon were under pressure to complete the construction of obstacles needed for the field exercise. At 2130 hours, he was summoned to the company CP to receipt for supplies and equipment. When he arrived, there was a pile of equipment and supplies stacked on the ground beside a vehicle. He was required to sign a hand receipt, then he conducted a hasty inventory and loaded the equipment and returned to his platoon.
2. When he arrived at his platoon's work site, he distributed the equipment, to include the MILES gear. He was not negligent in his handling of the gear and in his distribution of it. When the exercise ended, he collected the gear from the soldiers to whom it was issued. At turn-in, he was told that he was missing three items.
3. The DCSLOG advisory opinion, citing the conditions under which the gear was issued to the applicant, and opining that the gear was probably not present at issue, recommended relieving the applicant of financial liability. The opinion stated that the applicant was not negligent in his handling of the gear.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:
a. By reversing the finding of pecuniary liability imposed against the individual concerned by ROS 33-00; and
b. By refunding to the individual concerned any monies previously collected.
BOARD VOTE:
__INW___ ___SK__ __KAH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001059953 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DASA |
| ISSUES 1. | 128.10 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2001 | 2001063755C070421
The applicant states that, although he was absolved of liability by the survey officer for the subject ROS, his command found him liable for the loss of a Telephone, Digital, Non-Secure, TA-1035 because he did not conduct a sensitive item inventory upon concluding a field training exercise. The survey officer stated that the applicant failed to sub-hand receipt the telephone, but that this was not the proximate cause of the loss; that the ADADO Section was very busy at multiple locations;...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012929
As commander, the applicant did not follow the basic policies and procedures for accounting for US Army property published in AR 735-5, AR 710-2, AR 710-2-1, 7th CSG Policy Memorandum Number 16 and company SOP; f. Hold the C&E officer responsible for all three radios. The FLIPL IO found the applicant violated 7th CSG Policy Memorandum Number 16 (Hand Receipt Procedures) because he did not hand receipt his communications equipment to a platoon leader. Without showing that the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506508C070209
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. 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. Although...
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 | CY2002 | 2002081590C070215
The incoming commander stated that he found approximately $5,000 worth of the missing property, including non-expendable tools and the computer monitor. The opinion states the ROS was not properly completed; that statements show the losses occurred before the applicant signed the hand receipt; that key personnel were not interviewed; that the issue of command-directed 100% inventories of all sets, kits, and outfits were never accomplished; and the applicant wasn't supported or given...
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 | 2001063542C070421
The applicant requests the finding of financial liability in Report of Survey (ROS) #00-48 be reversed and all monies collected from him be returned. It also states that the applicant’s request for reconsideration, in which he states that his section sergeant “commandeered” his vehicle, appears to exonerate him of responsibility for the loss. As such, he had supervisory, direct, and personal responsibility for the vehicle and the BPC.
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...