IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019337 


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 a debt ($1,729.80) incurred as a result of a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) be remitted or the amount lowered.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  it is unjust for him to pay the asserted amount given the extreme indifference to the amount of time required to complete the FLIPL under Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability).  The FLIPL should have been completed within 75 days.  Instead, it took 674 days from investigation to approval authority decision with no substantive answers as to this delay.

	b.  this appeal to the Board is proper.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has proper jurisdiction over the applicant as the FLIPL is an Army action and the applicant is, and at the time of the incident was, an active duty Soldier.  

	c.  according to Army Regulation 735-5, the Active Army has from FLIPL initiation to approving authority approval, 75 days to complete processing of the FLIPL.  In the instant matter:




* Loss deemed to occur on 25 January 2011
* An Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers Investigation) findings and recommendations decided on 27 January 2011
* FLIPL initiated on 2 February 2011
* Notification to the applicant holding him responsible on 17 February 2011 (year on notification presumably incorrect "2010")
* Legal review on 14 March 2011
	
	d.  the next documents in his possession are lateness memoranda, dated August and November of 2011.  If another/different FLIPL was initiated, the applicant is unaware and does not have the documentation.  Another legal review occurred on 24 May 2012.  Six months later, on 30 November 2012, he receives another financial liability memorandum holding him responsible.  It is 674 days from the date of the completion of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation.

	e.  it’s an injustice to hold him responsible for the loss of this property given that almost nine times the amount of the allotted time to complete the FLIPL has passed.  He asks the Board to relieve him of this duty to pay this amount, or in the alternative, to lower the amount.   

3.  The applicant provides the FLIPL packet. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 2010 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (cavalry scout).  On 13 August 2012, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 14 August 2012 for a period of 3 years.  

2.  A DD Form 200 (FLIPL) shows an investigation of property loss was initiated on 2 February 2011 and the investigating officer found the applicant liable in the amount of $1,729.80 for the lost property (PAS-13 heavy weapons thermal sight).  On 26 October 2012, the approving authority signed the DD Form 200 and approved the recommendation.

3.  On 30 November 2012, he was notified that an approved charge of financial liability in the amount of $1,729.80 was assessed against him by the U.S. Government for the loss of U.S. Government property.

4.  He was promoted to sergeant on 1 January 2013.
5.  In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Supply, Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, 
G-4.  The advisory official recommends the financial liability assessed against the applicant be sustained as recommended by the approving authority for the FLIPL.  The opinion states:

* the applicant failed to maintain accountability of the PAS-13 entrusted to him
* the governing regulation states direct responsibility is the obligation of a person to ensure all Government property for which they have receipted, is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, safekeeping, and disposition are provided

6.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He did not respond.

7.  Army Regulation 735-5 prescribes basic policies and procedures in accounting for Army property and accounting for lost, damaged, or destroyed Army property.  It states that an investigating officer's responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss, damage, or destruction of U.S. Government property listed on the FLIPL and to determine if assessment of financial liability is warranted.  Individuals may be held financially liable for the loss, damage, or destruction of U.S. Government property if they were negligent or have committed willful misconduct and their negligence or willful misconduct is the proximate cause of that loss, damage, or destruction.

8.  Appendix D (Internal Control Evaluation) of this regulation is a tool in determining compliance with this regulation.  Paragraph D-4 (Test questions), b(3) states "Are losses covered by financial liability investigations for property loss investigated promptly and adequately?”  The answer is the total processing time is 75 days for Active Army.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his debt should be remitted or the amount lowered because it took too much time to complete the FLIPL investigation.  Although Appendix D of the governing regulation states the total processing time for the FLIPL investigation is 75 days, this appendix is only a tool depicting typical processing times. 

2.  Evidence shows he was found liable for the loss of U.S. Government property (PAS-13 heavy weapons thermal sight).  

3.  The investigating officer found that the applicant had personal responsibility for the missing thermal sight, he was negligent in its loss, and was the proximate cause of the loss.  He does not contend he was not responsible for the loss.

4.  There is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence which shows this debt was incurred erroneously.

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence on which to grant his requests.

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)                                         AR20130019337





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019337



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1