RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 29 MARCH 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060009327
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.
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, in effect, reconsideration of the Boards denial of his request for financial relief imposed by the Report of Survey (ROS) 24-XX, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, Georgia.
2. The applicant states that he has new compelling evidence showing that the accountable officer and the branch chief were not responsible for assigning a primary hand receipt holder for the hospital excess equipment as stated in the Boards Discussion and Conclusions, page 12, paragraph 2. He argues that the DDEAMC Property Accountability Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for hand receipt holders and property book officers supports his claim that he was not responsible for appointing the primary hand receipt holder. The applicant maintains that the Chief of Logistics Division, the Deputy Commander for Administration, or the Chief of Staff, were responsible for appointing the hand receipt holder for the hospital commander excess equipment in accordance with the DDEAMC Property Accountability SOP.
3. The applicant provides a copy of DDEAMC SOP, e-mail, two supporting statements and various documents on purchasing equipment.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2004100344, on 28 June 2005.
2. Page 12, paragraph 2 of Docket Number AR2004100344 stated that the Report of Survey investigation adequately determined that the applicant failed to perform his duties as an accountable officer and a property book officer. The investigation showed that he did not assign excess property to a primary hand receipt holder or require/conduct a 100 percent inventory of accountable property on an annual basis or within 30 days of a change in primary hand receipt holders.
3. Paragraph 4b of the DDEAMC Property Accountability Standard Operating Procedures stated that the Chief of each major activity (department, division, or separate activity) will be responsible to furnish Property Management Branch, Logistics Division, DDEAMC, the name of each hand receipt holder for his activity. This must be furnished in writing to the Logistics division at least two weeks prior to the change of any hand receipt holder for transmission to the Commanding General or designated representative for approval.
4. The supporting statement provided by a retired colonel provides insight into the accountability of excess equipment issues during his (colonel) tenure as the Chief, Logistic Division, DDEAMC. A former co-worker provided a statement attesting to the applicants exceptional performance of duty, and supervisory and management skills of accountability and supply operations. Additionally, the applicant provided an article from the internet dated 30 March 2004, that shows that several government officials from DDEAMC were either accused or convicted of theft of government property. However, these statements and articles do not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to reverse the Boards original decision.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the previous case, it was determined that the applicant was appointed as the Chief, Property Management Branch and DDEAMC Property Book Officer. As such, he had supervisory, direct, and custodial responsibility for the missing property. Additionally, the applicant was the commands subject matter expert on property management and accountability. The applicant failed to ensure that a 100 percent inventory was conducted on Hand Receipt AAX, the excess property hand receipt, or that it was even signed by a hand receipt holder. He also failed to conduct a 100 percent inventory on Hand Receipt AAX prior to signing the hand receipt and becoming the primary hand receipt holder on 30 January 1998.
2. The applicant argues that page 12, paragraph 2 of Docket Number AR2004100344 states that he was responsible for assigning a primary hand receipt holder. However, he states that the DDEAMC SOP specifically assigns that responsibility to the Chief of each major activity. The Board acknowledges that paragraph 2 merely states that the applicant did not assign excess property to a primary hand receipt holder and not that the responsibility for assigning a primary hand receipt holder fell under the applicants purview.
3. The applicants main argument for reconsideration is that as the Chief, Property Management Branch, it was not his responsibility to assign the primary hand receipt holder, which is not justification to warrant approval of his request. Evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was the primary hand receipt holder for Hand Receipt AAX and as such, he was responsible for the accountability of the property listed on that hand receipt.
4. Therefore, the overall merits of the case, including the copy of DDEAMC SOP and the applicants argument are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___LE___ ___LB __ __MF___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR AR2004100344, dated on 28 June 2005.
______ Lester Echols ______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060009327
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070329
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.
116.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100344C070208
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." 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. Fair market value is determined by first determining the condition of the item at the time of the loss or damage –...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010765
From his perspective, he provides the following facts: a. the selection of the investigating officer (IO) was inappropriate for she was a member of the brigade staff, rated by the appointing officer, and senior rated by the approving officer who unduly influenced the results of the FLIPL; b. the IO was the brigade S-1 whose responsibilities included the management of the in- and out-processing of personnel in the brigade, and ultimately she was responsible for issuing, receiving, monitoring,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001295
She completed a 100-percent inventory of all items that were on her hand receipt at that time. The IO's findings with regard to the applicant were: a. that the applicant was the rear detachment NCO in charge and the hand receipt holder for the left-behind equipment, b. that the applicant had numerous issues identifying the left-behind equipment as the sections failed to update her in a timely manner on the deployable equipment status, c. that the applicant appeared to be overwhelmed and...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | 20140016470
On 14 May 2013, he submitted a request for reconsideration and again he argued the loss of the scanner occurred in March 2012 before he joined HHC, that his actions were not negligent given the lack of support from his commander during the deployment cycle, and that all of his actions as both an XO for a rifle company and HHC supported the conclusion that he acted in a manner that a reasonably prudent person would in the execution of those duties. CPT CL's initial failure was his company'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 | CY2011 | 20110002991
The applicant requests, in effect, relief of financial liability imposed against him in the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL), #10-xxx-03, initiated on 28 July 2009. The applicant states: * the FLIPL is legally insufficient as it did not establish that he was responsible, culpable, or that his actions were the proximate cause of the loss under Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability) * he was made to sign for the property of three...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014268
The FLO states that there were several items that were added to the command inventory without the command review. The FLO states, in effect, that the applicant was the commander and he was personally responsible for not only the property on the battery hand receipt, but also, he was responsible for controlling and maintaining property accountability systems. The investigation found that the applicant's negligence resulted in the loss of the government property.