Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006480
Original file (20080006480.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       18 December 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006480 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that she be reimbursed the garnishment of $3,609.90 based on a Report of Survey (ROS).

2.  The applicant states she was not afforded the opportunity to rebut the Report of Survey in direct violation of regulation.  She states that she does not believe that the Report of Survey exists.

3.  The applicant provides copies of her Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Leave and Earnings Statement (LES), e-mail correspondence related to attempts to obtain a copy of the ROS, and an 18 April 2007 memorandum.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 1979, served on active duty until 15 April 1981 and in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) from 16 April 1981 until 6 November 1985.  

2.  She reenlisted on 1 September 1994 and served in a Reserve enlisted status until she was commissioned a Medical Services Corps second lieutenant in the USAR.  



3.  The applicant served on active duty from 19 July 2003 through 14 April 2004 with service in Bosnia from 17 August 2003 through 17 March 2004.

4.  She was promoted to captain effective 8 April 2005.

5.  In November 2005 the applicant commenced attempts to locate a Report of Survey that had resulted in a withholding from her Reserve pay in the amount of $3,609.90.  The series of e-mail correspondence shows that no one was able to locate a copy of a Report of Survey, a Financial Liability Memorandum, or any documentation that would indicate that the applicant had been afforded her rights of notification and rebuttal.

6.  Headquarters, 34th Infantry Division, National Guard Training and Community Center, Rosemount, MN, Memorandum for Record by the Deputy G-4, dated
18 April 2007, states that the Division G-4 section maintains copies of all Reports of Survey to include those from the Stabilization Force 14 a deployment to Bosnia-Herzegovina during September 2003 through April 2004.  An extensive investigation had been undertaken and no record of a Report of Survey was located pertaining to the applicant.  Further, no member of the staff recalled that the applicant was ever charged or investigated for any loss.  After exhausting all logical steps to locate any information on the missing Report of Survey, it was determined that no Report of Survey had been initiated from that office and it was recommended that the applicant be relieved of any financial liability and that she be reimbursed in the amount of $3,609.90.

7.  In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Supply, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Washington, DC.  It was noted that, after extensive research, no Report of Survey or Financial Liability Memorandum could be located.  Without being able to locate either the Financial Liability Memorandum or the Report of Survey, it was recommended that the Soldier be reimbursed $3,609.90, the amount withheld from her pay.

8.  A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant and she concurred with the findings. 

9.  Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability), sets forth the policy and procedures for property accountability.  In pertinent part, it provides the following: 

	a.  paragraph 13-1, states the financial liability investigation of property loss prescribed by the DOD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 12, chapter 7, replaces the report of survey system;

	b.  paragraph 13-2 states a financial liability investigation of property loss documents the circumstances concerning the loss of Government property and 
serves as, or supports a voucher for adjusting the property from accountable records.  It also documents a charge of financial liability assessed against an individual or entity, or provides for the relief from financial liability;

	c.  paragraph 13-34 states the financial liability officer will give any individual, against whom he or she makes a recommendation to assess financial liability, a chance to examine the financial liability investigation of property loss after the findings and recommendations, and the opportunity to make a rebuttal statement in his or her behalf.  The financial liability officer is to explain to the individual recommended for a charge of financial liability, the consequences of the recommendation, if approved; significance of any rebuttal statement submitted by him or her regarding the possible assessment of financial liability; attach any statement the individual desires to submit.  Additionally, the financial liability officer will notify the individual by memorandum of their right to inspect and copy Army records relating to the debt; to legal advice and to submit a statement and other evidence in rebuttal of the financial liability officer's recommendation. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After at least two extensive investigations no documentation was found that showed that a Report of Survey was properly created or that the applicant had been afforded her rights to rebut one if it had been.

2.  All investigators and officials concerned concur that there is no indication that the indebtedness created by Report of Survey was proper and that the applicant should be reimbursed all monies withheld as a result of this action, $3,609.90. 

3.  If a Report of Survey was in fact prepared the officer doing so failed to afford the applicant any of her rights to challenge the findings and offer a rebuttal.  

4.  In light of the lack of any indication that a Report of Survey was properly handled and the apparent violation of the applicant's legal rights, it is appropriate to grant the applicant's request and reimburse her the total amount of monies withheld ($3,609.90).

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  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 she was relieved of financial liability by a purported Report of Survey initiated in 2004 in the amount of $3,609.90 and that any portion of that debt already collected be refunded to her as an erroneous collection.


															XXX
      ______________________
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006480



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006480



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063542C070421

    Original file (2001063542C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests the finding of financial liability in Report of Survey (ROS) #00-48 be reversed and all monies collected from him be returned. It also states that the applicant’s request for reconsideration, in which he states that his section sergeant “commandeered” his vehicle, appears to exonerate him of responsibility for the loss. As such, he had supervisory, direct, and personal responsibility for the vehicle and the BPC.

  • 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089577C070403

    Original file (2003089577C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 May 2001, the Survey officer notified the applicant of the ROS recommendation that she assessed financial liability in the amount of $3,358.10 for the damage to the GOV. Thus, the obstruction should be the proximate cause of the accident, not her negligence as was indicated in the ROS. Paragraph 13-28 of the same regulation 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019971

    Original file (20110019971.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019971 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The advisory official recommended the financial liability assessed against the applicant be reversed and that all monies deducted from his pay as a result of the ROS be returned to him. The advisory official cited three reasons for his recommendation for relief that included: * the applicant was serving in the rank of 1LT when the property was lost but was incorrectly...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078353C070215

    Original file (2002078353C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of ROS Number 352-01-XXX, dated 7 January 2001, and supporting documents; a Memorandum, Request for Reconsideration, dated 24 August 2001; a memorandum written by his legal representative in support of his request for reconsideration, dated 27 August 2001; memoranda, Hand Receipts, and Requests for Issue or Turn-In. During the applicant's command time, he had four supply sergeants. The applicant's circumstances involved a number of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069707C070402

    Original file (2002069707C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 25 March 2001, the IO found the applicant negligent in the loss of the camera and recommended that she be held financially liable in the amount of $348.00. The IO stated that the unit The ROS states that the applicant was negligent, but does not clearly establish how the applicant was negligent or explain how her negligence led to (was the proximate cause of) the loss of the camera.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 2005000601C070206

    Original file (2005000601C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. She noted that the regulation required that a survey officer be senior to a potentially liable individual and recommended that the applicant be relieved of any liability and that the ROS expunged from his record. The survey officer was not senior to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089393C070212

    Original file (2003089393C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By letter dated 14 March 2002, the Deputy to the Commander, Anniston Army Depot informed the applicant that the Appellate Authority denied her request for financial relief of charges on ROS Number 8-__ in the amount of $438.55. 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. ...

  • 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 | CY1996 | 9608154C070209

    Original file (9608154C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES: That the ROS contains procedural errors in that the ROS officer appointed to conduct the survey was a captain, as was the applicant; the ROS was not completed within the prescribed 30 day time frame; the survey was processed for collection before his request for reconsideration was completed. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory...