IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090010765 


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 relief from financial liability of the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) (W86xxx-08-HQ-0xx3) that was conducted by the 4th Brigade, 75th Division, Battle Command Training Division, Birmingham, AL.

2.  The applicant states that the FLIPL investigation was improper and prejudicial to him with undue emphasis by his chain of command to find him liable.  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, and maintaining the brigade's out-processing checklists;

	c.  the IO did not adhere to the prescribed timelines of Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability) nor did she provide an explanation -- she was appointed on 2 March 2008, ordered to active duty to complete the investigation by 2 June 2008, and she completed the investigation on 8 September 2008, exceeding the 90 day suspense requirement;


	d.  the Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) inventory occurred 90 days after he relinquished company command;

	e.  the FLIPL investigation started 120 days after he relinquished company command;

	f.  he conducted equipment inventories on all hand receipts provided by the property book officer (PBO) during the change of command inventory and no discrepancies were found;

	g.  no equipment shortage annexes requiring an inventory were provided by the PBO;

	h.  the change of command equipment inventory was jointly conducted by himself, the incoming commander, and the PBO;

	i.  the brigade commander was briefed and approved the change of command; and

	j.  Army Regulation 735-5 states that after 30 days, the new commander assumes full responsibility for all real property.

3.  The applicant submits a copy of the completed FLIPL, dated 11 January 2009, together with statements, IO's findings and recommendation, inventory control documents, recommendations by the chain of command, and all other allied documents related to the FLIPL.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) officer, assumed command of Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 4th Battalion, 75th Division (Training Support) in March 2006.  He relinquished command on 1 November 2007.

2.  A 100 percent (%) inventory of OCIE with applicable accounting reports was directed by Department of Defense (DOD) Operation Total Recall, Phase VI.  OCIE inventories were conducted and applicable reports were prepared.  During this DOD directed inventory, it was determined on 1 February 2008 that $34,157.94 worth of OCIE was missing from HHC, 4th Battalion.  With a 10% depreciation allowance, the value of the missing OCIE was $30,742.15.


3.  On 2 March 2008, the executive officer of 4th Brigade, 75th Division, appointed a FLIPL IO in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5, chapter 13, to conduct a formal investigation into the loss of OCIE government property at HHC, 4th Battalion.  The appointed FLIPL IO is the brigade S-1 and senior to the applicant.

4.  On 8 May 2008, the applicant signed a DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning Procedure/Waiver Certificate) stating he understood his rights to include not having to answer any questions or make a statement, that anything he said or did could be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial, and that he had the right to talk to a private lawyer before, during, and after questioning and to have a lawyer present with him during questioning.  The applicant waived his right to representation by a lawyer.  The IO provided him a list of questions as part of her investigation.

5.  On 9 May 2008, the applicant responded by using a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement).  In summary, he stated he assumed command of HHC, 1st Brigade 87th Division (Training Support) (apparently later redesignated 4th Battalion, 75th Division) on 1 October 2005 and relinquished command on 31 October 2007.  Prior to relinquishing command, he and the incoming commander conducted a 100% inventory and all property was accounted for.  During the change of command equipment inventory, he let the brigade supply sergeant, PBO, and brigade S-4 take the lead in conducting the change of command.  The PBO provided the electronic hand receipts that did not include OCIE hand receipts.  He states the PBO had accountability for the OCIE for it was part of the brigade property book and the PBO was the brigade accountable officer.  In February 2008, the current PBO could not account for the OCIE.

6.  On 6 September 2008, the IO completed her investigation recommending the applicant and a staff sergeant be held collectively financially liable for the loss of OCIE with a depreciated value of $19,429.93 or one month's base salary, whichever is less.  She stated she had examined all available evidence and exhibits and personally investigated the same.  She determined that due to poor record keeping, it was not possible to determine when the OCIE shortages first occurred nor for how long the OCIE shortages existed.  The IO presumed the OCIE shortages occurred between March 2006, when the applicant signed an OCIE hand receipt, and the date of the DOD directed OCIE inventory.  The shortages occurred at the Hanson Reserve Center, Birmingham.  The IO recommendations are as follows:

	a.  that the applicant and a supply sergeant be held collectively responsible for the financial loss of Government property based on negligence;

	b.  there was no evidence of willful misconduct, but evidence did show a lack of compliance with established Army regulations and directives for supply management and inventory control procedures to include "sloppy paperwork" contributing to the loss of the OCIE;

	c.  there was no documented evidence to show annual, monthly, or cyclical OCIE inventories were conducted;

	d.  lack of adequate key control procedures necessitates changing supply locks for all brigade supply cages and equipment storage units;

	e.  implement supply key control procedures limiting and restricting access control points;

	f.  reconciliation of individual Soldier's OCIE records against a unit personnel accountability roster to determine personnel losses and gains to account for all individually-issued OCIE; and

	g.  follow established brigade in- and out-processing procedures by writing a company standing operating procedure (SOP) to include instructions for receiving and returning individual OCIE by unit personnel upon their arrival or departure.

7.  During the investigation, the IO found the applicant was the hand receipt holder of record for the brigade's OCIE as he had not cleared the OCIE hand receipt, dated 10 March 2006, before relinquishing command responsibility to the incumbent.  Additionally, her findings were:

	a.  the applicant did not attend the required company command course;

	b.  he attributed his knowledge of supply from being a former supply staff officer and reading commander's handbooks;

	c.  he demonstrated through the interview that he had knowledge of the basic Army regulations and pamphlets pertaining to supply procedures;

	d.  the unit lacked established written out-processing procedures to ensure Soldiers returned OCIE to supply;

	e.  the incoming commander accepted the verbal statement from the applicant and supply sergeant that he had inventoried all the brigade equipment during the change of command inventory;

	f.  the incumbent commander did not inventory the OCIE hand receipt during the change of command inventory;

	g.  a sergeant had responsibility for the maintenance of the hand receipts instead of the senior staff sergeant who was in the unit personnel manning document supply sergeant position;

	h.  the supply sergeant and his subordinate could not verify that the supply sergeant had completed a 100% OCIE inventory with his predecessor nor could he verify that the outgoing and incoming company commanders had verified and reconciled the unit hand receipts; and

	i.  the supply sergeant could not verify and no documented evidence could be found to show that annual, cyclical, and monthly property inventories were conducted to include OCIE.

8.  On 8 September 2008, by memorandum, the IO notified the applicant that she recommended he be held financially liable to the Government for the loss of Government property.  He was advised of his rights to inspect and copy Army records relating to the debt, to legal advice, and to submit a statement and other evidence to the approving authority in rebuttal of the IO's recommendation.  He was also instructed to review Army Regulation 735-5 pertaining to his rights and rebuttal submission.

9.  On 23 September 2008, the applicant acknowledged he had examined the findings and recommendations of the FLIPL IO's report and he submitted a statement of objection.

10.  In his statement, the applicant disagreed with the findings and recommendation of the IO.  He stated that the investigation was not properly conducted for it did not establish a primary baseline.  He purports that the primary baseline should establish a duty and a breach of this duty, then determine if this breach caused the loss, and what damages occurred.  He states that the following evidence supports his contention that he provided a positive supervisory climate and that his actions were prudent, careful, and thorough:

	a.  the investigation did not find him or identify him, as the former company commander, breaching his duties and obligations as the commander nor did the investigation reveal that he was negligent or that his actions were directly attributed to the loss of Government property;

	b.  he performed annual, monthly, and cyclic inventories, preparing a statement verifying the results of the inventories with no discrepancies identified during his command tenure; 

	c.  the chain of command was briefed monthly on equipment inventory status;

	d.  with no PBO on the brigade staff, he conducted a 100% inventory of OCIE directed by the brigade commander on 10 March 2006.  This inventory was done prior to the brigade's annual training.  No OCIE property accounting discrepancies were identified;

	e.  a PBO reported to the unit and all OCIE went back onto the brigade's property book and, as the company commander, he was not assigned or accountable for the OCIE;

	f.  he maintains he was responsible for unit Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) property only;

	g.  on 30 October 2007, he briefed the brigade commander that he, the incoming commander, and the PBO had completed a reconciliation of unit property with no noted discrepancies;

	h.  on 1 November 2007, he relinquished command and per Army Regulation 735-5, the new commander assumed complete responsibility for all real property after his 30th day in command;

	i.  the inventory of OCIE was conducted 90 days after he relinquished command and without his physical presence, so it is plausible that during this period this OCIE Government property was lost;

	j.  he argues that the brigade did not have an existing Command and Supply Discipline Program (CSDP); therefore, how can he be held accountable and punished because the brigade lacked a CSDP and the new commander, after
90 days in command, could not adequately account for the Government property;

	k.  the IO provided no evidence to show she interviewed the PBO and brigade S-4; therefore, an argument is made that the PBO and the brigade S-4 are negligent as the brigade's supply subject matter experts;

	l.  the brigade lacked proper supply key control procedures with the keys kept in a staff sergeant's top desk drawer leading to the loss of OCIE;

	m.  he purports that other tenant units at the facility likely have in their supply cages the missing OCIE; and

	n.  he purports his unit had proper in- and out-processing procedures for unit members with the IO's staff section maintaining responsibility for these clearance records.

11.  The applicant concludes his rebuttal statement by saying that the findings of the investigation holding him financially responsible for the loss of OCIE are flawed, inconsistent, inadequate, and are not supported by the evidence.  He continues by stating that there is no evidence of his deliberate misconduct, negligence, or improper use of procedures leading to the loss of the OCIE.

12.  On 21 October 2008, the appointing authority reviewed the FLIPL report and its supporting evidence and statements.  He communicated directly with the applicant through electronic mail asking him for clarification.  Specifically, "Did you inventory the OCIE at the change of command inventory in October 2007?"  The applicant responded, "No."  He further stated that he did not have access to the electronic property book and relied on the PBO to provide the required hand receipts.  He and the incoming commander only inventoried the unit TDA equipment on the hand receipts provided by the PBO.

13.  Additionally, the appointing authority directly asked the applicant based on his rebuttal that when the OCIE hand receipt was transferred to the incoming PBO, if a 100% inventory of OCIE was completed, and if he had evidence of a transfer document or hand receipt showing the incoming PBO signed for the property.  The applicant responded that he "was advised after the brigade returned from annual training in the summer of 2006" that the OCIE had been transferred and that the S-4 and the PBO maintained all property records and accountable hand receipts.

14.  On 10 January 2009, by memorandum, the applicant received notice that the charge of financial liability was approved by the commanding general of the 75th Division in the amount of $30,742.15 for the loss of Government property.  This notification included his rights to inspect and copy Army records related to the debt, obtain legal advice, request reconsideration of the assessment, request an extension of the collection period, enter a written agreement to repay the debt by installment, and apply to the Board for Correction of Military Records.  The notice provided the applicant 30 calendar days to submit a request for reconsideration.


15.  In the process of this case, on 18 August 2009, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Supply, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.  The advisory official recommended that the financial liability assessed against the applicant be upheld and that he be assessed the amount of $19,429.93, or one month's base salary, whichever is less.  In the opinion, the director stated the applicant failed as a unit commander to ensure that Government property entrusted to him was properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, safekeeping, and disposition of equipment was completed in accordance with established Army regulations.  Therefore, failing in his supervisory responsibilities, the applicant was negligent in accordance with applicable Army regulations.

16.  On 18 August 2009, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.

17.  On 19 October 2009, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion stating the Board should reject the opinion from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, by not finding him financially responsible for the loss of Government property.  He restates, in effect, the facts he presented in his application to the Board.  Additionally, he sought legal assistance from Fort McPherson, GA and the legal officer supports his contention that the investigation was flawed, inconsistent, and inadequate and that the findings of the investigation holding him financial liable for the OCIE are inconsistent with the evidence.  There is no evidence of deliberate misconduct, negligence in duty, improper use of procedures, nor knowledge that he failed to comply with known directives and guidance.

18.  References

	a.  Army Regulation 710-2 (Supply Policy Below the National Level) prescribes the policy for supply operations below the national level in both peace time and in war.  Specifically, the policy for the accountability and assignment of responsibility for property issued to a using unit to include accountability and management of stocks being stored at direct, general, or installation supply support activities for issue to the customer.  Additionally, this regulation states:

   (1)  commanders, civilian supervisors, and managers at all levels will
ensure compliance with applicable policies prescribed by this regulation and outlined in the internal control checklists ensuring that accounting is complete and accurate, on hand and serviceable, and is safeguarded;


   (2)  commanders will properly use, care for, and safeguard all Government
property, seeking the most efficient and economical means to accomplish assigned tasks;

		(3)  commanders will develop SOPs detailing specific functional responsibilities;

   (4)  company, battery, and troop commanders will implement a CSDP,
a commander's program, using their existing resources that includes enforcement of supply discipline methods, administrative measures, disciplinary measures, reaction to incidents of non-financial liability, and ensuring supply discipline and management controls;

   (5).  when the property book is maintained at the company level, the 
company commander will be the accountable officer and he may appoint, in writing, a PBO who then becomes the accountable officer; however, the company commander will still have command responsibility.  When the property book is maintained at a higher level, the unit commander is the primary hand receipt holder with direct responsibility for all items listed on the primary hand receipt;

   (6)  property books are organized so that organization and installation
property are kept separately, with a separate section also maintained for OCIE or a unit's basic load;

   (7)  USAR unit commanders will jointly conduct a 100% inventory of unit
property not on sub-hand receipts during the change of command inventory with the next higher commander appointing a disinterested person if the incoming or outgoing commander cannot be present for the change of command inventory;

   (8)  incoming and outgoing primary hand receipt holders (incoming and 
outgoing commanders) will conduct a joint inventory of property listed on the primary hand receipt within 30 days before the effective date of assumption of duties.  Additionally, inventories will be completed before the new primary hand receipt holder assumes duties or the outgoing hand receipt holder departs (whichever is first) with a maximum of two extensions (15 days each) granted by the next higher authority; and

   (9)  inventories will be conducted annually or cyclically (monthly, quarterly, 
or semiannually) as directed with USAR units performing said inventories every 18 months.

	b.  Army Regulation 710-2 prescribes property accountability as the obligation to keep records of property, documents, or funds such as identification data, gains, losses, dues-in, dues-out, and balances on hand or in use.  Inherent in supervisory positions is the responsibility to care for, use, and safeguard Government property issued to or used by subordinates.  In general, property responsibility will be assigned and acknowledged, in writing, for all property recorded in the property book as on hand.  For USAR Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) organizations, the using unit commander has both command and direct responsibility for Government equipment and supplies, which is controlled by using permanent or temporary hand receipts.  Responsibility is assigned to the individual Soldier for property issued for personal use to include OCIE.  Additionally,

   (1)  OCIE will be stocked, issued, recovered, and accounted for by the
commander or hand receipt holder with the accountable record for OCIE in the unit property book;

   (2)  a basic property book record will be maintained for each OCIE line
authorized and/or on hand.  The balance recorded in the property book will reflect the quantity on the shelf, plus items in laundry, maintenance, or bulk issues;

   (3)  the OCIE record is used to assign OCIE responsibility with
commanders, ensuring that all Soldiers clear their OCIE record before departing the unit;

   (4)  copies of documents showing clearance of responsibility will be
included in the Soldier's personnel file;

   (5)  inventories of OCIE will be conducted 30 days after field training
exercises to verify OCIE is on hand and serviceable; and

   (6)  if a hand receipt holder or PBO is absent for an extended period, the
commander will appoint an interim hand receipt holder.

	c.  Army Regulation 735-5 prescribes the basic policies and procedures in accounting for Army property and sets the requirements for formal property accounting within the Army, which includes but is not limited to defining the CSDP, its intent, and implementing procedures.  It specifies that commanders at all levels will ensure compliance with all policies and procedures prescribed by this regulation that apply at their level of command.  It provides for the following procedures:

   (1)  all persons entrusted with Government property are responsible for its
proper use, care, custody, safekeeping, and disposition;

   (2)  all property acquired by the Army from any source must be accounted 
for and such accounting with supporting documents will be maintained through formal records with the accounting continuous from the time of acquisition until the ultimate consumption or disposal of the property occurs;

   (3)  all property or material will be properly accounted for on item detail 
accounting records and financial (dollar) item accounting records with fixed responsibility;

   (4)  the obligation of a commander is to ensure all Government property 
within his or her command is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, safekeeping, and disposition are provided.  Command responsibility is inherent in command and cannot be delegated;

   (5)  commanders will ensure Government property is secured whether in 
use or in storage, will observe subordinates to ensure their activities contribute to the proper custody, care, use, and safekeeping, and disposition of all property within their command; enforce all security, safety, and accounting requirements; and take administrative or disciplinary action when necessary; and

   (6)  unit commanders and accountable officers will establish accountability 
for any property not accounted for as soon as he or she discovers it.

   d.  Army Regulation 735-5 also sets the requirements for the conduct of investigations into the loss of Government property and the preparation of the FLIPL reports.  Specifically:

   (1)  the FLIPL process starts when the appointing authority, usually a 
Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) or above (most often a battalion or squadron commander), appoints an IO to investigate the facts surrounding the loss.  The IO will be a commissioned or warrant officer, a noncommissioned officer with the rank of sergeant first class or above, or a civilian employee GS-7 or above.  The IO must be senior in grade to the individual subject to potential liability, unless war or military exigency requires otherwise.

   (2)  the IO investigates and makes initial findings as to what happened.  
A copy of the initial findings is then given to the individual subject to potential liability.  That individual has 7 days to prepare and submit a rebuttal back to the IO.  The person will have 15 days if the findings are mailed to him or her.  Mailing may be appropriate if the IO and the individual are not assigned to the same installation (perhaps the individual was reassigned during the investigation process).  The IO will consider the rebuttal along with the findings, and make a recommendation about who should be held liable and in what amount.  The recommendation is made to the appointing authority.  Under normal circumstances, do not exceed 240 calendar days total processing time. Commanders may adjust the time segments downward at their discretion.

   (3)  the appointing authority reviews the FLIPL, reviews the action taken 
by the IO, and either requests further investigation or concurs with the IO’s findings.  The appointing authority then forwards the FLIPL to the approving authority.  The approving authority, usually a Colonel (O-6) or above (most often a brigade or regimental commander, or a division or installation chief of staff), approves or disapproves the IO’s recommendation.  Before making his/her decision, the approving authority receives a legal opinion verifying that the findings are legally sufficient and that the FLIPL was completed in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5.

   (4)  in order to assess liability, the approving authority must find:

   (a)  the person to be held liable had a duty/responsibility to take care of 
the property;

   (b)  the person failed to carry out that duty (negligence);

   (c)  the person's failure led to the loss (proximate cause).  The proximate 
cause is defined as the cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence of events unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage;

   (d)  without this cause, the loss or damage would not have occurred.  It is 
further defined as the primary moving cause, or the predominate cause, from which the loss or damage followed as a natural, direct and immediate consequence;

   (e)  the approving authority will notify the person(s) to be charged that 
financial liability has been assessed.  The notification will be in memorandum format and will inform the person they have the right to request reconsideration of (appeal) the approving authority's decision.

   e.  Army Regulation 735-5 defines the following terms:

   (1)  Accountability - pertains to maintaining formally prescribed property 
records for Government property and is an obligation officially assigned to a specific person and may not be delegated;
   (2)  Responsibility - pertains to the care, custody, safekeeping, and 
disposition of Government property with financial liability assessed against any person who fails, through negligence or misconduct, to perform those duties and where such failure is the proximate cause of a loss to the Government;

   (3)  Negligence - the failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would 
have acted under similar circumstances.  An act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have committed, or omitted, under similar circumstances and which is the proximate cause of the loss of, damage to, or destruction of Government property.  Failure to comply with existing laws, regulations, and/or procedures may be considered as evidence of negligence; and

   (4)  Proximate Cause - the cause, which in a natural and continuous
sequence of events unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage.  Without this cause, the loss or damage would not have occurred.  It is further defined as the primary moving cause, or the predominant cause, from which the loss or damage followed as a natural, direct, and immediate consequence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the FLIPL investigation was improper, that it did
Not comply with established timelines, that the IO had responsibility for maintaining the brigade out-processing form, that the loss of the OCIE was
90 days after he relinquished command, that the FLIPL started 30 days later, and that the chain of command unduly influenced the IO and the FLIPL report, finding him financially liable for the loss of Government property.

2.  Upon assumption of command, it is the obligation of a commander to ensure that all Government property within his/her unit is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, safekeeping, and disposition are properly executed in compliance with established regulatory guidance.  Command responsibility is inherent in command and cannot be delegated.  The applicant relinquished command on 1 November 2007.  In January 2008, during a DOD directed inventory of OCIE, the command determined there was a loss of OCIE.  The loss of OCIE was reported through proper channels.  As a result of this loss of OCIE, a FLIPL was initiated nearly 120 days after the applicant relinquished command.  The officer in command at the time of the known loss is accountable for inventorying and financially accounting for property to include reporting to higher authority that Government property is lost, damaged, or destroyed. 

3.  The applicant's contention that the date of loss of Government property was 90 days after he relinquished command is noted.  However, as he was the last known property accountability officer who physically signed for the OCIE as the responsible officer on 10 March 2006, he had a command responsibility upon the arrival of an incoming unit PBO to conduct a 100% physical inventory of the OCIE hand receipt.  Per regulatory guidance, there is no presumption that a responsible officer just assumes responsibility for Government property.  A PBO must be appointed in writing and all Government equipment hand receipted and on the unit property books must be physically inventoried by the commander or outgoing PBO.  Therefore, his argument that the loss discovery occurred more than 30 days after he relinquished command and that he is not financially responsible is unfounded for he, himself, never conducted a responsible inventory with the incoming PBO in 2006.  Therefore, he was both the accountable and responsible officer for the OCIE.

4.  A higher authority directed the investigation and the resulting FLIPL found the applicant responsible for the loss of OCIE valued at $19,429.93, as he was the documented hand receipt holder (financial liability officer) of record.  The applicant argued and made a presumption that when a PBO reported to the division later in 2006, the PBO automatically assumed responsibility for the OCIE equipment.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to the IO, approving authority, or this Board to show that an inventory of the subject OCIE was conducted later in 2006 and that he was physically cleared and released from responsibility and accountability for the OCIE hand receipt as required by regulatory guidance when a transfer of property responsibility occurs between two hand receipt holders.

5.  Based on the evidence, the applicant did not conduct OCIE inventories on a systemic and cyclic basis nor did he, as the company commander, have in place a CSDP ensuring Soldiers who arrived and departed the unit received and subsequently returned their OCIE.  Inherent in command is the responsibility for accountability of Government property.  While it is acknowledged there was no Government TDA equipment discrepancies when he relinquished command, there remained an open hand receipt showing he was accountable for the OCIE.

6.  In failing to adequately maintain accountability of the OCIE from 10 March 2006 to the date of the known loss in January 2008, the applicant is negligent for failing to act prudently by inventorying the OCIE and ensuring a new responsible officer, the PBO as he purports, accepted physical accountability for the OCIE and subsequent financial responsibility for said OCIE.  As he failed to properly account and transfer responsibility for the OCIE he is in violation of known regulations, and/or CSDP procedures.

7.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the IO was unduly influenced by the chain of command or that his rights were violated.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly notified that he was being held liable for the loss of Government property in the amount of $19,429.93 or one month's base pay, whichever is less.  He was afforded due process in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5, chapter 13 (The Report of Survey System).  He was permitted to rebut the FLIPL and seek reconsideration of the financial liability assessment.  Additionally, the evidence shows that the financial liability amount was based on fair market value and the method as described in Army Regulation 735-5. 

8.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x____  ____x____  ___x_____  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.



      __________x_____________
       	   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)                                         AR20090010765



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090010765



15


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1