RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002876


      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. Richard P. Nelson             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann Jr.         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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 she not be held financially liable for the
loss of a Dell laptop computer, as promulgated by Headquarters, United
States Army Troop Command, Unit #15171 Memorandum dated 28 July 2004.

2.  The applicant states: financial collection action was initiated by
finance and accounting before the reconsideration and appeal process was
completed; the original Report of Survey (ROS), with her rebuttal
memorandum attached, was lost; and reconstruction of the original ROS was
not within prescribed time constraints and did not include the ROS
officer’s signature.

3.  The applicant provides an extensive assortment of evidence in support
of her appeal, to include:

      a. a reconstructed ROS dated 7 April 2004;

      b. a Memorandum for Record from the unit S-4 Noncommissioned Officer
in Charge (NCOIC) dated 13 April 2004;

      c. a Legal Review of the ROS dated 20 April 2004;

      d. a Request for Reconsideration (by the applicant) of the ROS dated
21 June 2004, and subsequent denial by the Appellate Authority dated 28
July 2004; and

      e. copies of the applicant’s June and July 2004 Leave and Earnings
Statements (LES).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Active Guard
Reserve (AGR) Program with U.S. Forces, Korea.

2.  On an unspecified date, three laptop computers were issued by Hand
Receipt Holder #209; one to the applicant, for the purpose of taking it
with her on a Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment, and the other two to a
colonel and a sergeant major in the same office as the applicant.  None of
these laptops were sub-hand receipted to these personnel.

3.  Not able to properly operate the laptop, the applicant elected to leave
it behind (as it would not have been of any use) and departed on her TDY
assignment.  She claims to have left it under her desk, in its case,
covered by a wastebasket.

4.  The laptop held by the applicant was discovered to be missing during a
routine inventory of equipment on 16 April 2003.  The next day, and after
checking with all available personnel, Hand Receipt Holder #209 contacted
the Military Police to report the loss.

5.  On 29 April 2003, a ROS officer was appointed as investigating officer.
 The officer was given 30 calendar days in which to complete the survey.

6.  The ROS officer completed his investigation on 2 July 2003 (though the
ROS Memorandum is dated 2 July 2002) and determined that the applicant
should be held liable and required to pay $3,050.18 due to “lack of proper
accountability of government property in her possession.”  On that same
date, (this one actually dated 2 July 2003) the applicant was notified of
the recommendation of the ROS officer and advised of her rights relative to
the matter.  While an endorsement was made available for the applicant to
sign and acknowledge receipt, there is no indication she did so, as the
endorsement is unsigned.

7.  In a Memorandum for Record dated 13 April 2004, the unit S-4 office
reported that the ROS “was not completed within the 75 days allotted.”
“The memorandum further states, “The original Report of Survey was lost
along with all statements and findings.  An original Report of Survey was
reproduced and resubmitted.  It took a while to locate the Survey Officer
who conducted the investigation.  The reproduced Report of Survey and
Survey Officer’s findings were dated with the first original date.”

8.  On 20 April 2004, a legal review of the ROS was conducted by the Office
of Administrative Law, U.S. Army Legal Services Activity – Korea.  That
office opined that, for numerous reasons, the ROS was not legally
sufficient and recommended that a new Survey Officer be appointed to
conduct another investigation into the matter.

9.  On 25 May 2004, the applicant was notified that financial liability was
being assessed, this time in the amount of $851.00, against her.  In the
memorandum, the applicant was again advised of her rights and notified that
she had 30 calendar days in which to request reconsideration.

10.  The applicant submitted a detailed request for reconsideration on 21
June 2004.  This request was forwarded via a DA Form 200 (Transmittal
Record).

11.  The applicant’s LES for June 2004 shows that a total of $669.64 was
deducted from her pay for “GPLD/ROS” (Government Property Lost or
Damaged/Report of Survey).

12.  The applicant’s LES for July 2004 shows that a total of $181.36 was
deducted from her pay for “GPLD/ROS.”

13.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from
the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, U.S Army Logistics
Transformation Agency.  That office opined that, in spite of numerous
administrative errors, the fact that the ROS was lost for almost a year,
and that collection action was taken prior to completion of the appeal
process, the applicant “has not set forth any allegations of harm caused by
the delay or any of the administrative errors.”  The office further opined
that the applicant is liable for the loss of the laptop and no
administrative relief was granted.  A copy of this advisory opinion was
provided to the applicant for review and comment.  The applicant did not
submit a response.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly shows a succession of errors on the part of the
applicant’s chain of command in adjudicating the ROS.  The original ROS was
not completed within the prescribed time constraints.  The original ROS,
along with all statements and findings, was lost.  Nearly a year passed
before action was taken by the command to reconstruct it.

2.  When the original ROS was reconstructed, it was found to be legally
insufficient by the Office of Administrative Law and that office
recommended a new Survey Officer be appointed.  This was not accomplished.

3.  The 25 May 2004 memorandum of financial liability advised the applicant
that she had 30 calendar days in which to request reconsideration, a
hearing, or remission or cancellation of indebtedness.  Evidence shows she
did such within the required time frame, however collection action had
already been taken and, in fact, completed by the time the appellate
authority completed his review.

4.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board determined that there is
insufficient evidence that an injustice has occurred in this case.
Evidence clearly shows the applicant was issued the item and she took
custody of it, but failed to properly provide for its security; negligently
leaving it unsecured on the floor beneath her desk in a common office area,
while she went TDY.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jns___  ___phm__  ____ljo _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




            _________John N. Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002876                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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