RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            14 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060003431


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 his records be corrected by removing
financial liability imposed against him for the loss of government property
in the amount of $570.00 and that he be reimbursed all funds already paid.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the findings of negligence are
unjust and contrary to the established legal standards which govern
financial liability investigations.  He goes on to state that the
investigating officer failed to prove that he violated a particular duty of
care to the property through negligent or willful misconduct.  He also
failed to show that his (the applicant’s) conduct was the proximate cause
of the loss of the property and he failed to produce any concrete evidence
which linked his conduct to the loss of the trimmer mower.

3.  The applicant provides a three-page explanation of his contentions, a
copy of a DA Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss)
and continuation sheets, a copy of the memorandum appointing an
investigating officer, a statement authored by the investigating officer,
copies of three legal reviews, the applicant’s rebuttal to the charges, a
key box access roster, key and lock inventory sheets, a copy of airfield
services standard operating procedures, statements from the applicant
acknowledging receipt of the charges, a copy of the report of survey, a
sworn statement from the applicant, a copy of the applicant’s job
description, a copy of the sub-hand receipt signed by the applicant, sworn
statements and questionnaires completed by other employees, and the denial
of his appeals to be relieved of pecuniary liability.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 18 June 2004, the applicant, a General Schedule (GS) 12 civilian
employee who was serving in the capacity as an airfield facilities manager
at a military installation in Northern Virginia, signed an organizational
sub-hand receipt totaling seven pages of organizational equipment.

2.  In February 2005, during the course of a 100% inventory conducted by
the commander, it was determined that a trimmer mower could not be
accounted for and the commander directed that a report of survey be
conducted.  The applicant informed the commander at that time that the
mower had been missing as early as September 2004.  The applicant also had
the lock changed on the storage shed and initiated new key control
procedures in order to better secure property under his control.

3.  On 19 April 2005, the battalion commander appointed an investigating
officer to conduct an investigation of the property lost to determine
whether someone’s negligence or willful misconduct was the proximate cause
of the loss.

4.  The investigating officer found that the applicant had supervisory
responsibility to ensure that all government equipment under his hand
receipt was properly used, cared for, and stored and determined that the
loss of the property was the result of the applicant’s negligence.  The
applicant submitted a rebuttal to the findings and contended that he needed
additional manning (personnel) in order to properly account for all
equipment.

5.  A legal review conducted on 10 November 2005 determined that the
investigating officer’s investigation was legally sufficient and that the
amount determined by the investigating officer that the applicant should be
held liable for ($570.00) was correct.

6.  The investigation was approved on 21 November 2005 to hold the
applicant financially liable for the loss of the property in the amount of
$570.00.

7.  On 20 December 2005, the applicant submitted a request to the battalion
commander requesting reconsideration of the assessment of financial
liability against him for the loss of property.  He contended that he was
not negligent and that the investigating officer had failed to establish
any negligence on his part that led to the loss of the property.

8.  On 27 December 2005, the battalion commander denied his request and
cited six reasons for the decision to deny his request that dealt with the
applicant’s negligence in the matter.

9.  The applicant further appealed to the commander of the Air Operations
Group and on 4 January 2006, that appeal was also denied.

10.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained
from the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G4,
which opined, in effect, that the investigation was properly conducted in
accordance with the applicable regulation and found to be legally
sufficient.  The opinion recommended that the Board make no change to the
financial liability assessed against the applicant by the approving
authority.  The opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and to
date no response has been received by the staff of the Board.

11.  Army Regulation 735-5 provides policies and procedures for
accountability of Army property and provides the procedures for conducting
reports of survey.  It provides, in pertinent part, that a report of survey
documents the circumstances concerning the loss, damage, or destruction of
government property and serves as, or supports a voucher for adjusting
property from accountable records.  It also documents a charge of financial
liability assessed against an individual or entity, or provides for relief
from financial liability.  A report of survey is mandatory when negligence
or willful misconduct is suspected as the cause, and the individual does
not admit liability and refuses to make voluntary reimbursement to the
government for the full value of the loss, less depreciation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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 this requirement.

2.  The available evidence indicates that the report of survey was
conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation with no indication
of any violations of the applicant's rights.

3.  The applicant was afforded due process in each of his appeals and while
the outcome did not change, the applicant was not required to pay the
financial liability assessed against him until all appeals had been
properly exhausted.

4.  The Board has noted his contention that he should not have been held
liable for the loss of property because he was not negligent; however, he
was responsible for the care, security and accountability of the equipment
he was signed for and he was found to be negligent in the supervisory care
of such equipment.  Accordingly, he was found to be pecuniary liable for
the loss of equipment under his care.

5.  The applicable regulation required that a report of survey be conducted
in this case and the evidence presented with the report of survey supports
the findings and recommendations of the survey officer.  Accordingly, there
is no basis to reverse the findings of the report of survey.





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___CG __  ___TR __  ___PT___  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.





                                  ____  Curtis Greenway________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003431                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061114                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A DAC not on AD                       |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |N/A DAC not on AD                       |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |N/A DAC not on AD                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |N/A DAC not on AD                       |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.1024   |116.0100/rpt of survey                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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