RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100344


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the finding of pecuniary liability imposed
by Report of Survey (ROS) 24-XX, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical
Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, Georgia be reversed and that he be relieved
of all financial liability.

2.  The applicant states, in a 5-page memorandum dated 2 December 2003,
that:

      a.  The ROS contains unjust procedural errors, such as determining
the cost of missing property by using depreciated value instead of fair
market value.

      b.  The Survey Officer (SO) did not take into account the "complexity
of the activity ongoing" at the time of the loss, the "adequacy of
supervisory measures or guidance for property control," the "feasibility of
maintaining close supervision" over the property, or the "extent
supervision could influence the situation considering pressing duties or
lack of qualified assistants."

      c.  The command ordered logistics practices that were both illegal
and labor-intensive.

      d.  A major cause of the loss involved violations of chapter 8, Army
Regulation (AR) 735-5 regarding requests for deviations from policies and
procedures for property accountability.  The command ignored this
requirement.

      e.  A Southeast Regional Medical Command (SERMC) policy memorandum,
dated 18 March 1999, permitted removal of certain property with an
acquisition price of less than $2,500.00 from property accountability.
Certain property was excluded, including classified/sensitive property;
property, medical maintenance, significant; leased, rented, historical,
heraldry or negotiable media; computer equipment and peripherals; property
listed on the Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA); and test,
measurement and diagnostic equipment requiring calibration.  The applicant
wrote a 20 April 1999 memorandum on this subject in which he states he
argued that "pilferable items" should be accounted for regardless of
acquisition cost.

      f.  Other employees were to blame for the shortages/losses.

      g.  Staff of DDEAMC, including a Lieutenant Colonel, a Chief Warrant
Officer, a Master Sergeant, and a Staff Sergeant, were charged with various
offenses, to include:  conspiracy; dereliction of duty; false official
statement; larceny; fraud; obstruction of justice; and conduct unbecoming
an officer.
      h.  He was the victim of prejudice and hostility because he is an
African American military retiree with a disability and because he
complained of Government credit card fraud.

      i.  Contrary to the findings of the ROS SO, he did not fail to
conduct a 100% inventory of the "AAX Hand Receipt."  He so stated this fact
in his rebuttal.

3.  The applicant provides two volumes of documents, including DA Form 4697
(Report of Survey) ROS #24-XX, dated 11 February 2002, DDEAMC.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was a Regular Army Staff Sergeant (SSG/E-6) serving in
military occupational specialties (MOS) 29E (Radio Repair) and 76Y (Unit
Supply).  He served from 30 November 1978 to 15 May 1992, when he was
retired by reason of permanent physical disability.

2.  Following his disability retirement from the Regular Army, the
applicant became a Department of the Army Civilian (DAC).  In 1993, he was
appointed as the Chief, Property Management Branch and DDEAMC Property Book
Officer (PBO) in the grade of GS-11.  As such, he was responsible for the
property in a 330-bed Army Medical Center; 12 satellite Troop Medical
Clinics on Fort Gordon; health clinics at Fort McPherson, Fort Buchanan,
and in SOUTHCOM; and the DDEAMC Logistics Warehouse (warehouse).  He
supervised a staff of six and was accountable for an $87 million property
book with 207 hand receipts.

3.  One of the hand receipts for which the applicant was responsible was
Hand Receipt AAX, the excess property hand receipt.  Whenever hand receipt
holders had excess property that they wanted to delete from their hand
receipts, they would turn-in the property to the warehouse.  The property
was then deleted from their hand receipts, added to Hand Receipt AAX, and
stored in the warehouse.  Ultimately, the excess property would then be
disposed of in accordance with existing procedures.  The items would be
removed from Hand Receipt AAX and the Property Book, and accountability
discontinued.  As of 20 January 1998, the AAX Hand Receipt contained 1035
items.

4.  On 11 February 2002, the applicant initiated the subject ROS.  In his
statement of circumstances in Block 11 of DA Form 4697, he stated that he
was submitting the ROS on behalf of a subordinate, RK, who was medically
retired.  He added "On or about 21 Jan 98, [RK] refused to participate in
the 100%
inventory . . . " of Hand Receipt AAX.  The ROS listed 246 items that were
on the AAX hand Receipt, but were not on-hand in the warehouse.  The total
dollar value of the missing items was $885, 218.52.  On 14 February 2002,
the Chief, Logistics Division, DDEAMC directed that a SO be appointed.  On
an unknown date, a Colonel (COL/O-6) was appointed as the SO.

5.  From the records provided, it appears the SO began his investigation in
earnest in June 2002 and completed it on/about 4 November 2002.  His
investigation determined the following:

      a.  Excess property was a serious problem.  Property was turned-in by
hand receipt holders, added to Hand Receipt AAX, and stored indefinitely in
the warehouse.  Turn-in of excess property to the Defense Reutilization
Management Office (DRMO) was haphazardly accomplished, turn-in documents
were not posted to document registers, and turned-in property not dropped
from the hand receipt and property book.

      b.  The Logistics Warehouse was not a secure facility.

      c.  Hand Receipt AAX was signed by employee RK on 6 November 1996, at
which time there were 281 items on it.  A 100% inventory was not conducted.
 During 1997, RK developed serious medical problems and was on extended
sick leave for much of the year.  In January 1998, RK refused to resign
Hand Receipt AAX, stating " Because [he] could not control the turn in of
equipment" and therefore could not maintain the integrity of the hand
receipt.  Employee RK was medically retired in October 1999.

      d.  The applicant signed Hand Receipt AAX on 30 January 1998, but
continued to show employee RK as the responsible individual on all related
documents posted to the document registers.  The applicant signed the hand
receipt without ever conducting a 100% inventory even though it had grown
to contain 1,035 items.

      e.  In March 1998, the applicant's superior, the Chief of Logistics,
directed an inventory of the Hand Receipt AAX be accomplished.  He assigned
a retired logistics chief warrant officer to conduct the inventory.  The
inventory succeeded in identifying the warehouse location of most items on
the hand receipt and clearly identified those items that could not be
located.  This information was provided to the applicant, but he did not
take any action; no ROS was initiated to
account for the missing property at that time.  The inventory also noted
that many "missing items" had apparently been turned-in to DRMO, but were
not deleted from the property book, thus creating a "paper loss."

6.  Upon concluding his investigation, the SO found that the items of
property listed on ROS 24-XX, "[with a] total cost [of] $885,218.52, are
unaccounted for due to the gross negligence of [applicant]" and that he is
"financially liable for this loss since he failed to exercise due diligence
as required by Army Regulations."  In support of his findings, the SO
provided:

      a.  The applicant was appointed PBO in 1993 and was the accountable
officer for all DDEAMC property.  As such, he had supervisory, direct, and
custodial responsibility for the missing property.  He was also directly
responsible for warehouse operations and the disarray therein.

      b.  The applicant was the command's subject matter expert on property
management and accountability and, therefore, subject to a higher standard
of responsibility for understanding and adhering to property accountability
requirements and procedures.  However, he repeatedly failed to adhere to,
and comply with, established property management and accountability
requirements and procedures which directly resulted in the loss.  He never
ensured that a 100% inventory was conducted on Hand Receipt AAX, or that it
was even signed by a hand receipt holder.  He failed to conduct a 100%
inventory of Hand Receipt AAX when he signed the hand receipt on 30 January
1998, thereby becoming the PHRH (Primary Hand Receipt Holder).

      c.  An inventory was directed by the applicant's superior and
conducted by a third party in March 1998.  The applicant took more than 4
years to submit a ROS on the property missing from Hand Receipt AAX and
attempted to shift responsibility to a former employee who had retired 2
1/2 years before the ROS initiation date of 11 February 2002 and who had
been relieved of responsibility for the hand receipt by the applicant's
signing of it in January 1998.

      d.  The applicant continued to list employee RK as the responsible
individual for Hand Receipt AAX as late as March 2002, some 2 1/2 years
after his retirement and 4 years after being replaced by the applicant as
the PHRH.

      e.  The applicant's own staff reported that the efficient processing
and disposition of excess equipment was impeded by the applicant's sloppy
administrative work, and by the Hand Receipt Managers who frequently
misplaced, lost or did not process turn-in documentation in a timely
manner.  The applicant's Lead Supply Technician, hired in 2001, cited this
as an obvious long-standing problem affecting the operation of the Property
Management Branch.  She found documents more than 3 years old that had not
been processed, as well as 39 hand receipts that were in a delinquent
status.  The Hand Receipt Managers and administrative clerks all worked
directly for the PBO.  Directions given by the PBO hindered efficient
operations and directly contributed to the expanded number of items on Hand
Receipt AAX.  For example, the applicant directed that property could only
be cleared from the Hand Receipt AAX when the turn-in form was returned
from DRMO.  Frequently this form was not returned at all, and when it was
returned, it was received several months after the item had been turned-in.
This requirement was unnecessary since a DRMO representative signed the
turn-in form when the property was released to DRMO.

      f.  The applicant was adamant that he was the subject matter expert
concerning property management and was not receptive to any constructive
criticism or suggestions as to how Property Management Branch could be
operated more efficiently or effectively.  His management style appeared to
be authoritarian and he was not open to new methods to enhance his job
performance.  Of the former Chiefs of Logistics interviewed by the SO, all
cited great difficulty in holding the applicant accountable for his job
performance.  Each cited concern that he would allege racial discrimination
if they tried to hold him accountable for his duty performance.  In fact,
he filed equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints and wrote letters
alleging "embedded prejudice tactics and hostility" and "embedded
suppressed hidden racism" on the part of his immediate superiors.  His
continual implied threats to file racial discrimination complaints
contributed to a hostile work environment which constrained the Chiefs of
Logistics and led to their tolerating his unsatisfactory performance.

7.  During the course of his investigation, the SO did find mitigating
factors in favor of the applicant.  The SO stated that the "respective
Chiefs of Logistics bear some responsibility for the situation," pointing
out that the often contentious relationship between the applicant and his
superiors tended to cause his superiors to leave the applicant alone rather
than correct his poor performance at the risk of racial discrimination
charges.  The SO identified this leadership failure as a contributing
factor to the losses on Hand Receipt AAX, reasoning that, had the
applicant's superiors demanded resolution to the long-standing problems
with property accountability, the losses might have been averted, or at
least lessened. Also, he found the Logistics Warehouse "was, and is,
grossly inadequate and
had poor to almost non-existent security."  Many DDEAMC departments had
unrestricted access to the warehouse in order to store their own property;
key control was absent; and personnel were permitted to move about the
warehouse unescorted by warehouse employees.

8.  The SO concluded the dollar value of the loss was $885,218.52.  He
further stated that, by regulation, the applicant, as the accountable
officer, could be assessed the full amount.  However, he recommended the
applicant's financial liability be capped at 2 months' base pay ($8,553.66)
due to various mitigating factors cited in the report.

9.  The applicant was notified of the SO's intent to recommend financial
liability.  On 24 July 2002, he rebutted the recommendation, stating that
he did conduct a 100% inventory of Hand Receipt AAX.  He also stated that
personnel shortages prevented him from discharging his duties and his
requests for additional staff fell on deaf ears.  He added that the SO did
not fully appreciate the magnitude of his job and that, in any case,
property accountability was a command responsibility.  The applicant's
rebuttal argument was considered and rejected.

10.  The ROS was forwarded to the DDEAMC Center Judge Advocate's Office for
legal review.  On 20 September 2002, the Assistant Center Judge Advocate
found the ROS to be legally sufficient with one exception.  It was noted
that the amount charged by the SO was incorrect.  First, the SO must have
determined the fair market value of all items listed on the ROS as missing.
 Second, the amount charged must be the actual amount of the loss, not 2
months' salary.

11.  On 15 October 2002, the SO responded to the 20 September 2002 legal
review seeking a reconsideration of the requirement to establish fair
market value for the missing property because "it would be an overwhelming
task."  He further stated that he was not holding the applicant liable as
the PBO, but as the PHRH; therefore, "the amount of assessed financial
liability is limited to the amount of the loss, or 1 month's base pay,
whichever is less."

12.  On 17 October 2002, a second legal review was conducted.  The
Assistant Center Judge Advocate found the ROS legally sufficient.  She
noted, however, that the amount charged was still not correct if the intent
was to charge the applicant 1 month's pay as the PHRH [the ROS assessed 2
months' pay].

13.  A third legal review was conducted on 21 October 2002, this time by
the Acting Center Judge Advocate.  It found the ROS investigation was
conducted in compliance with legal requirements.  However, the review again
pointed out that
the value of the loss must be established in accordance with applicable
regulations.  Specifically, either fair market value or depreciated value
of the lost property must be calculated.  Sufficient evidence was presented
to support the finding that the applicant be held financially liable, but
he must be held liable as the PBO accountable officer, not the PHRH.  By
regulation, the PHRH must be an individual other than the accountable
officer [thus, the applicant could not sign the hand receipt].  The legal
review concluded that the applicant be held financially liable for the full
amount of the loss and that the amount of the loss be properly established
using the depreciated value of each lost item.  A fourth legal review,
dated 30 October 2002, came to the same conclusions.

14.  On 4 November 2002, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for assessment of financial liability in the amount of
$508,660.00 for the loss of property.

15.  On 10 December 2002, the applicant, in response to the SO's adjusted
recommendation to hold him liable in the amount of $508,660.00, again
rebutted the ROS and the finding of financial liability.  He argued:

      a.  The ROS did not indicate how the assessment was determined.

      b.  The SO did not properly consider how his [applicant's] acts or
omissions constituted negligence, specifically because he did not take into
account "the nature, complexity, level of danger, or urgency of the
activity ongoing at the time of the loss, damage, or destruction of the
property."

      c.  The inadequacy of supervisory measures was not considered.

      d.  The difficulty of maintaining close supervision of the property
was ignored.

      e.  The limited extent to which supervision could have influenced the
situation was not properly weighted.

He pointed out that the command did not support his efforts and even made
his task more difficult by illegally dropping items with an acquisition
cost of less than $2,500 from property accountability.

16.  On 2 January 2003, the SO made an addendum to the Findings and
Recommendation of ROS 24-XX in order to respond to the applicant's second
rebuttal (10 December 2002).  He stated that the applicant did not present
any
new or substantive information in his rebuttal to warrant an alteration of
either the finding or the amount of liability ($508,660.00) as "determined
by the legal review."  The addendum addressed the following:

      a.  The SO provided the applicant a copy of Hand Receipt AAX showing
the calculated depreciated values for each piece of unaccounted for/missing
property.

      b.  The complexity of the applicant's duties was properly considered,
but did not change the finding that he was grossly negligent and
financially liable.

      c.  The applicant was sloppy in discharging his responsibilities,
which resulted in the loss of property.

      d.  The applicant's contention that he had no control of the security
of the Logistics Warehouse was discounted.  Although the applicant may have
inherited a less than adequate security situation, he did nothing to
improve it during his tenure as Chief, Property Management Branch and PBO.

      e.  It was the applicant's lax property accountability procedures,
not the command climate, that created the situation which led to the
losses.  Had the applicant done his job, the excess property items would
not have mushroomed on the Hand Receipt AAX and turned-in property would
have been properly dropped from accountability.

The addendum recommended maintaining the applicant's liability.

17.  The applicant submitted additional rebuttals which were ignored.  On
20 March 2003, a fifth legal review was performed on ROS 24-XX and its
addendum by the Acting Center Judge Advocate.  This review found the ROS to
be legally sufficient; the monetary assessment properly determined using
the depreciation method; all deficiencies properly addressed; and
sufficient evidence to hold the applicant liable.

18.  Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property
Accountability) prescribes the basic policies and procedures in accounting
for Army property and sets the requirement for formal property accounting
within the Army.  It implements specific property accounting procedures;
defines accountability and responsibility; identifies the categories of
property and the accounting procedures to be used with each; and identifies
the basic procedures for operating a property
account.  The regulation also prescribes the accounting procedures to be
used when Department of the Army (DA) property is discovered lost, damaged,
or destroyed through causes other than fair wear and tear.  It provides
authorized methods to obtain relief from property responsibility and
accountability.  It also prescribes the Department of the Army policy on
such losses and financial liability.  It states, in pertinent part, that:

      a.  The appointment as a PBO carries with it direct responsibility
for all the property carried on the property book records that has not been
issued on hand receipt.  Property issued by a PBO on hand receipt (called
the primary hand receipt) carries with it the delegation of direct
responsibility for the property listed. Further hand receipting (known as
sub hand-receipting) does not transfer direct responsibility, nor relieve
the primary hand receipt holder of his or her duties.

      b.  The property book account is a formal set of property accounting
records and files maintained at the user level.  It is used to record and
account for all nonexpendable and other specially designated property
issued to that activity.  Each property book account will be managed by a
formally appointed PBO.  The PBO is an accountable officer.

      c.  When property that must be accounted for is issued to a property
book account, the PBO receiving the property is charged with property book
accountability.  Accountability remains with the PBO until the property is
transferred to another accountable officer or the property is dropped from
the property book records on a valid credit voucher.

19.  AR 710-2 (Supply Policy Below the National Level) prescribes policy
for supply operations below the national level.  It applies in peace and
war.  Specifically, this regulation provides specific policy for the
accountability and assignment of responsibility for property issued to a
using unit.  It states:

      a.  The unit's property book must be signed for by the PBO. To track
all property, the PBO is required to periodically have it inventoried and
ascertain existence.  Generally, AR 710-2 requires all property to be
inventoried at least once a year.  Some types of sensitive items such as
weapons, ammunition, and night vision sights must be inventoried monthly or
quarterly.  Also, whenever a new person takes over the property book, an
inventory must be done to ascertain existence of all the property for which
the new person is signing.

      b.  To track all the property issued to units, periodic inventories
are conducted to ensure the property is still in place and in usable
condition.  A part of the PBO's responsibilities is to ensure that those
inventories are accomplished when needed.  To do this the PBO will remind
(in writing) the PHRHs when to conduct an inventory and, if cyclic, what
items to include.  The PBO will also request a response from the PHRH (in
writing) to document when the inventory was completed and the results of
that inventory.  The PBO must also do his or her own inventory by making
sure all the hand receipts are up-to-date and signed by the proper persons,
and then physically counting all the other property that is not on a valid
hand receipt.

20.  Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 735-5 details the ROS process and
states:

      a.  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.

      b.  The total amount of pecuniary liability for accountable officers
will be established as the full amount of the Government's loss, minus
amounts charged to others.

      c.  When more than one person's negligent act or acts of willful
misconduct are the proximate cause for the loss, those persons should be
recommended for assessment of collective financial liability. The term
"collective financial liability" is used when more than one individual is
found financially liable for a loss.

21.  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.  Willful misconduct is defined
as any intentionally wrongful or unlawful act dealing with the property
concerned.  Command responsibility is the obligation of a commander to
ensure that all Government property within his or her command is properly
used and cared for, and that proper custody and safekeeping of Government
property are provided.  It is evidenced by assignment to command at any
level and includes:  ensuring the security of all property in the command;
observing subordinates to ensure that
their activities contribute to the proper custody, care, use, and
safekeeping of all command property; enforcing all security, safety, and
accounting requirements; and taking administrative or disciplinary measure
when necessary.  Supervisory responsibility is the obligation of a
supervisor to ensure that all Government property issued to, or used by,
his or her subordinates is properly used and cared for, and that proper
custody and safekeeping of the property are provided.  It is inherent in
all supervisory positions and is not contingent upon signed receipts or
responsibility statements.  Responsibilities include:  providing proper
guidance and direction; enforcing all security, safety, and accounting
requirements; and maintaining a supervisory climate that will facilitate
and ensure the proper care and use of Government property.  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.  Personal
responsibility is defined as the obligation of a person to exercise
reasonable and prudent actions to properly use, care for, and safeguard all
Government property in his or her possession.  It applies to all Government
property issued for, acquired for, or converted to a person's exclusive
use, with or without receipt.  Proximate cause is defined as a cause which,
in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced
loss or damage and, without which, loss or damage would not have occurred.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was the accountable officer and PBO for the DDEAMC.  As
such, he was responsible for maintaining a formal set of property
accounting records to show, on a continuing basis, the item identification,
gains and losses, on hand balances, and the conditions and locations of all
property assigned to the DDEAMC property account.  When property that must
be accounted for is issued to a property book account, the PBO receiving
the property is charged with property book accountability.  Accountability
remains with the PBO until the property is transferred to another
accountable officer or the property is dropped from the property book
records on a valid credit voucher.

2.  The ROS investigation adequately determined that the applicant failed
to perform his duties as an accountable officer and a PBO.  The
investigation showed that he did not assign excess property to a PHRH or
require/conduct a 100% inventory of accountable property on an annual basis
or within 30 days of a change in primary hand receipt holders.

3.  The applicant's failure to perform the basic functions of his duties as
a PBO constituted negligence on his part.  This, coupled with his
accumulation of excess property without any stringent accountability,
created a climate conducive to the loss of property.

4.  The applicant, by virtue of his position as Chief, Property Management
Branch of DDEAMC, was also responsible for the operation of the Logistics
Warehouse. The warehouse was found to have serious security deficits which
could have facilitated the loss of property stored therein.

5.  Despite the findings by the SO that the applicant's negligence caused
the losses, there are issues of unfairness associated with this ROS.  The
SO and the applicant's chain of command assessed financial liability
against the applicant in the amount of $508,660.00.  For most retired
SSG/DAC GS-11 employees, such a huge assessment constitutes financial ruin.
 Yet knowing the enormity of the assessment, the applicant's chain of
command did not deem it necessary to conduct a fair market value
determination of the loss because it would be too time-consuming.  Instead,
they chose to take depreciation from the acquisition cost of the missing
items.

6.  Fair market value is determined by first determining the condition of
the item at the time of the loss or damage – in the absence of the
property, the determination is made using historical records and
maintenance records.  Then the commercial market is surveyed to determine
the price for similar items in similar condition that have been sold during
the past 6 months.  The fair market value is the preferred method of fixing
the value of property at the time of the loss.  A fair market value
assessment would have most likely resulted in a much smaller financial
assessment against the applicant.  Although time-consuming, fairness
dictates that the applicant should have been afforded this benefit.

7.  The SO, in his findings and recommendations, determined that the
applicant's superiors bore "some responsibility for the situation."
However, the SO did not assign "collective financial liability," choosing
instead to assign sole liability to the applicant.  If others bore shared
responsibility, they should have shared in the financial liability.

8.  Finally, the SO's investigation made several references to "paper
losses," that is, accounting errors and not actual losses of
accountability.  Yet, there did not appear to be a serious effort to
determine whether any of the charged losses fit the "paper loss" category.
This is patently unfair to the applicant.

9.  Despite the applicant's serious negligence in the performance of his
duties as an accountable officer and PBO, the ROS contains serious flaws
that harm the applicant.  Because of these flaws, relief is warranted as
recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__jrs___  __lf____  __jrm___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a partial recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by expunging that portion of Report of Survey 24-XX
that finds him financially liable in the amount of $508,660.00.  This does
not bar the applicant's former command from conducting a new ROS into this
matter, if it finds this to be a feasible course of action.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
reversing the finding of financial liability.

                                        Joe R. Schroeder
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100344                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050628                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(GRANT)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.1000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]