IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    23 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018235 


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, in effect, that the finding of financial liability for a lost laptop computer be reversed and the monies withheld for this loss be refunded to him.

2.  The applicant states he was found liable for the loss of a government laptop from his unit in Afghanistan based on a Statement of Charges bearing a forged signature.  Based on the favorable results of an investigation, he requested recoupment of monies withheld but was told that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was not authorized to reimburse the monies. 

3.  The applicant provides copies of a:

* DA Form 2062 (Hand Receipt)
* DA Form 2323 (Sworn Statement)
* DD Form 362 (Statement of Charges/Cash Collection Voucher)
* DA Form 1559 (Inspector General Action Request)
* DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers)
* Leave and Earnings Statement (LES)
* 19 pages of e-mails related to the case



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) civil affairs captain with prior enlisted service, served on active duty from 15 August 2010 through 30 October 2011 with service in Afghanistan from 1 October 2010 through 11 August 2011 with Company A, 413th Civil Affairs Battalion.

2.  The hand receipt for an IBM Thinkpad computer, serial number LK-PTKK8, shows the applicant signed for this item on 2 January 2011.  The form does not include a hand receipt number or stock number for the laptop.

3.  The e-mails show that the F Company commander of another unit contacted the applicant in mid-February 2012 in attempts to locate a missing laptop computer.

4.  On 3 March 2012, the F Company commander prepared a Statement of Charges form for the missing item listed as a Computer, Micro Lap-top, serial number on LKPTKK8, stock number NSN 7021-01-c02-3770.  The signature block for the applicant contains an indecipherable signature and is dated by the unit commander on the same date the charge sheet was prepared.  The listed value of the missing unit is shown as $1,250.00.  

5.  The applicant reports that the cost of the missing laptop was withheld from his mid-March pay.  The LES provided by the applicant shows a debt payment of $1,547.72.

6.  On 3 April 2012, the applicant requested an Inspector General (IG) investigation into the processing of the Statement of Charges.  He provided a sworn statement of his recollection of the handling of the different computers that he had been accountable for, including one that had been turned in as defective and one that was left with Headquarters Company that actually belonged to F Company.  He noted that the signature on the Statement of Charges was not his, and raised the question of whether or not the serial number for the missing unit was correct.

7.  An investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6 (AR 15-6) (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) was conducted between 17 July 2012 and 16 August 2012.  The Report of Proceedings provides the following:

   a.  investigating officer found that:

   (1)  there was no documentation to show that the applicant had turned in the hand-receipted IBM Think Pad and by his own statement he had not received a turn-in document;
   
   (2)  there was no evidence of an incorrect serial number for the missing unit; 
   
   (3)  the applicant failed to properly obtain relief of accountability for the computer by not receiving a turn-in document;
   
   (4)  the signature on the Statement of Charges and the one on the hand receipt were not the same, indicating possible forgery;
   
   (5)  the F Company commander did not ensure the Statement of Charges was signed by the applicant before he signed it and turned it over to finance;

	b.  investigating officer recommended:

		(1)  the F Company commander, executive officer, and unit supply noncommissioned officer receive additional training on Command Supply Discipline;

		(2)  a proper Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) be initiated to ascertain the disposition of the missing laptop;

		(3)  the DD Form 362 be turned over to legal authorities and an investigation into the possibility that the signature on the form was a forgery; and

		(4)  the applicant be reimbursed the monies collected from him. 

	c.  The appointing authority approved the findings and recommendations of the investigating officer.

8.  A review of the Federal supply system's National Stock Numbers (NSN) shows the IBM Thinkpad computer has a stock number of 7021-01-c02-3770, and the Panasonic Micro Lap-Top (trade name Toughbook) computer has a stock number of 7021-01-c02-2963.

9.  Army Regulation 735–5 (Property Accountability Policies) sets forth the guidelines for establishing and maintaining the Command Supply Discipline Program (CSDP).  It provides:

   a.  When Government property is reported missing, commanders at all levels, primary hand receipt holder, or the accountable officer will initiate a preliminary investigation and search to be conducted to ensure the missing property is actually missing before an adjustment document is initiated.  The preliminary search will be aggressively pursued to meet the time limits in paragraph 13–8.
   
   b.  Paragraph 13–6 states that the time constraints for processing financial liability investigations of property loss is 75 days following the discovery of the loss or damage of Government property.  When delayed beyond the processing time, the person responsible for the delay is to prepare a written statement explaining the reason for the delay.
   
   c.  Paragraph 13-8 states financial liability investigations of property loss are to be initiated and presented to the appointing authority or approving authority as appropriate not later than 15 calendar days after the date of discovering the discrepancy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant left Afghanistan on 11 August 2011 and the laptop was not reported as missing for over six months.

2.  While the applicant bears some responsibility for accounting for the missing laptop in that he did not obtain the proper turn-in documents, proper procedures were not undertaken to ascertain if he was in fact responsible for the missing laptop.  Further, proper procedures were not followed in the processing of the financial liability, thereby denying the applicant his due process.  

3.  The approved AR 15-6 investigation found the signature on the Statement of Charges was not that of the applicant and recommended additional actions be taken to ascertain the disposition of the missing laptop, conduct a proper FLIPL, and to investigate the forged signature.  It also recommended that the applicant be reimbursed for the monies withheld.  There is no evidence that any of these actions were taken.

4.  In addition to the questionable signature on the Statement of Charges the identifying information for the missing laptop is incorrect.  

5.  The hand receipt and the NSN shown for the missing unit are for an IBM Thinkpad, whereas the description of the missing unit on the Statement of Charges is a Panasonic Micro Lap-Top (Toughbook).  

6.  To continue to hold the applicant accountable for the loss of the missing laptop creates an injustice.

7.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to find that there is insufficient evidence to hold the applicant financially liable for the missing laptop and reimburse to him the monies withheld for its loss.

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 the applicant was not financially liable for the missing laptop and reimbursing to him the monies withheld for its loss.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20130008235



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018235



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1