Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012851
Original file (20060012851.txt) Auto-classification: Approved


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012851 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Yolanda Maldonado

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas

Member

Mr. Gerald J. Purcell

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 relief from debt to the Government of the United States.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was medically evacuated from Iraq and his commander failed to properly collect, inventory, safeguard and dispose of his personal and military property, as required by Army Regulation 638-2.  He further states that on 18 August 2004, while still a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), he contacted the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of the Clothing Issue Facility (CIF) and explained that he had been medically evacuated and that the property in question was locked in two duffle bags and secured at the company headquarters in Iraq.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of the Report of Survey with enclosures, certified mail receipts, notification of Indebtedness to the Government of the United States, leave and earnings statement, medical evacuation documentation, attachment orders, retention on active duty orders, Army Regulations 638-2 and 735-5, and Army Pamphlet 600-8. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Aeromedical Evacuation Patient Record (AF Form 3899) dated 5 June 2003, indicates that the applicant, a mobilized Soldier assigned to the 212th Transportation Company, Indiana Army National Guard (ARNG), was hospitalized on 7 May 2003 at the 379th Mobile Army Surgical Facility, Camp Wolf, Kuwait.  He was medically evacuated from Kuwait on 7 June 2003 to Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany.  He was subsequently assigned and transported to WRAMC for treatment.

2.  Orders Number 055-017, Department of the Army, Camp Atterbury, Edinburgh, Indiana, dated 24 February 2004, attached the applicant to WRAMC for the purpose of medical treatment.

3.  Orders A-06-405448, United States Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 9 June 2004, retained the applicant on active duty for an additional 179 days to 4 December 2004, for the purpose of receiving medical treatment at WRAMC.  



4.  On 2 August 2004, the NCOIC of the CIF, Camp Atterbury Maneuver Training Center, Indiana ARNG, wrote a memorandum to the applicant advising him that he was indebted to the Government of the United States in the amount of $477.42, for failure to turn-in federally owned equipment.   

5.  Orders A-06-405448A01, United States Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 15 December 2004, extended his active duty for a total of 358 days to 1 June 2005, for the purpose receiving medical treatment.  

6.  On 16 May 2005, the Adjutant General, State of Indiana Military Department, wrote a memorandum to the applicant notifying him of the recommendation to hold him financially liable to the Government of the United States in the amount of $588.37 for failure to turn-in government property.   The attached list indicates the applicant owed $477.42 plus an additional $110.95 for unit shirt, trousers, and field jacket.

7.  Orders A-06-405448A03, United States Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 30 November 2005, further extended his active duty for a total of 716 days to 25 May 2006, for the purpose of receiving medical treatment.  

8.  On 18 January 2006, the Physical Evaluation Board concluded that the applicant's medical condition prevented satisfactory performance of duty in his grade and specialty.  This condition had not stabilized to the point that a permanent degree of severity could be determined.  Therefore, he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List. 

9.  On 20 January 2006, the applicant was retired due to medical disability.  His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) shows that he attained the rank of captain, pay grade O3, and had completed 2 years, 
11 months and 11 days of creditable active duty and had completed 5 years, 
9 months and 2 days of creditable inactive service.

10.  On 1 February 2006, the applicant's Leave and Earnings Statement indicates that $477.42 was deducted from his earnings for the payment of a debt.

11.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Supply and Maintenance, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Department of the Army, Washington, DC 20310-0500, wherein, he opined that  Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability) required that pecuniary liability be linked to proximate cause.  The applicant has sufficiently proved that he left his personal effects and equipment with his unit.  Therefore, the proximate cause of loss is due to lack of supervision.  Army Regulation 638-2 (Army Casualty Operations) states that "recovery, safeguarding, and proper disposition of personal effects and baggage are command responsibilities".  The applicant's command had the responsibility of properly securing his personal effects and military equipment at the time that he was medically evacuated.  It further opined that the applicant should not have been held liable for the items listed on the Report of Survey and should be reimbursed the $477.42 taken from his military pay.

12.  A copy of this advisory opinion was provided to the applicant; however, no response was received as of the date of the Board.

13.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-8 (Management and Administrative Procedures) provides, in pertinent part, that if the Soldier is hospitalized at a medical treatment facility at his duty station, his clothing/property will be secured in the unit facilities pending return of the Soldier. 

14.  Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountibility) provides, in pertinent part, that before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person's conduct was the "proximate" cause of the loss, damage, or destruction.  That is, the person's acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss, damage, or destruction, and without which the loss, damage, or destruction would not have occurred. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was hospitalized on 7 May 2003, while still in the theater of operations.  Subsequently, he was medically evacuated from the theater and remained under medical treatment until his disability retirement on 20 January 2006.  

2.  Regulatory guidance clearly provides that it was a command responsibility to collect, inventory, safeguard, and properly dispose of all property that was in the applicant's possession at the time of his hospitalization.   

3.  Due to the applicant's medical condition that required his hospitalization and continued medical treatment for almost 3 years, it is not reasonable to believe that any action or inaction on his part was the proximate cause of the loss.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request for relief of this debt should be granted.  Furthermore, he should be reimbursed all monies taken in payment for this debt.

BOARD VOTE:

__LMD__  __YM ___  __GJP __  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was not held pecuniary liable on the subject report of survey, thus voiding this debt to the Government of the United States and reimbursing him in the amount of $477.42.




       Yolanda Maldonado___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012851
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070515 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
116.0100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018500

    Original file (20080018500.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The equipment was not inventoried at this time. In the advisory opinion, the DCS official recommended that the financial liability assessed against the applicant be upheld and that he be charged as indicated the amount of $644.91 for the lost OCIE.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015963

    Original file (20130015963.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    (6) The governing regulation states, "the appointing and approving authorities must act on the DD Form 200 once an individual has been properly notified and given the opportunity to respond to the findings. Army Regulation 735-5, chapter 13, detailed the FLIPL process and stated 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. It also states, in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018743

    Original file (20130018743.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of record shows the applicant signed a hand receipt for his unit's blast protective undergarments without actually ensuring the property was fully inventoried. The applicant states the FLIPL IO found that there was no lost, stolen, or destroyed property; however, the available record shows the IO recommended the applicant be held liable for the loss of Government property. The FLIPL IO recommended the applicant be assessed the liability for the loss of blast protective undergarments.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084140C070212

    Original file (2003084140C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The ROS officer noted that all office personnel have keys to the office in question and that several individuals found the office door unlocked and/or open after it had been secured the previous evening. Army Regulation 735-5, paragraph 13-28 states that a survey officer's responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss, damage, or destruction of Government property listed on the ROS and to determine if assessment of financial liability is warranted. The missing items may or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057384C070420

    Original file (2001057384C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also recommended that the Approving Authority approve the Appointing Authority’s recommendation provided he was satisfied: (1) that the HRH and/or Supervisor failed to establish an SOP regarding use and security of the phone;(2) that the work area had sufficient storage containers in which to lock the phone and accessories; (3) that the AMC employees could have obtained the necessary time from the painting contractor to permit them to secure the valuable government equipment; and (4) that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051562C070420

    Original file (2001051562C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also recommended that the Approving Authority approve the Appointing Authority’s recommendation provided he was satisfied: (1) that the HRH and/or Supervisor failed to establish an SOP regarding use and security of the phone;(2) that the work area had sufficient storage containers in which to lock the phone and accessories; (3) that the AMC employees could have obtained the necessary time from the painting contractor to permit them to secure the valuable government equipment; and (4) that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013194

    Original file (20100013194.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A legal review, dated 12 March 2009, found that the recommendation could not be supported by the evidence and pointed out that liability must rest on a finding of negligence that was the proximate cause of the loss. This office recommended that financial liability in the amount of $4,722.90 be assessed against the applicant because the applicant had command responsibility for the equipment and he failed to account and safeguard it. Commanders are responsible for Government property within...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020177

    Original file (20100020177.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A DD Form 200 (FLIPL) shows an investigation of property loss (clothing and goggles) was conducted and on 30 June 2009 the Financial Liability Officer found the applicant liable for the lost property ($5,005.53). On 3 July 2009, the IO signed the notification letter and the applicant was notified he was being recommended for charges of financial liability to the United States Government in the amount of $5,005.53 for the loss of Government property. On 18 August 2009, the applicant was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007176

    Original file (20100007176.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He contends that according to Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability), individuals may be held financially liable for loss or damage of U.S. Government property if they are negligent and their negligence is the proximate cause of that loss or damage. A FLIPL may justify holding him liable only when the financial liability officer establishes that his responsibility for property, combined with a negligent act or omission on his part while maintaining or...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064815C070421

    Original file (2001064815C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of The Assistant Chief of Staff, G4, Headquarters, Eighth US Army which states that the applicant was negligent in her duties as a company commander; that she did not follow prescribed policy in AR 735-5 for property accountability; that the applicant was, in fact, notified of the results of the two ROS, but that proper notification procedures were not followed; and that the applicant was improperly charged more...