IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  21 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019881 


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 findings of a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) Number WCEXXX 13-XXX be voided and that all funds ($1,845.35) taken from him be returned to him.
 
2.  The applicant states that when he was initially charged with the loss of the property he submitted evidence disputing his responsibility for the loss.  The investigator turned the investigation to a previous commander, and without further evidence that commander was found not liable and turned full liability on to him.  All sworn statements except one were self-serving as everyone had at one time signed for the property, which was from the battalion motor officer, who had never signed for the property.  He was aware of all of the property and he stated that the item of property was never there.  The appointing and approving authority did not prove proximate cause towards him and did not follow the time rules of Army Regulation 735-5.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of the FLIPL to include his rebuttal, the rebuttal of a previous commander, request for reconsideration, sworn statements, and his leave and earnings statement (LES). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving in the pay grade of E-7 when he was honorably discharged on 7 May 2008 to accept a commission.  He had served 16 years, 8 months, and 10 days of active federal service.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he served 6 years and 9 months as a supply specialist.

2.  On 8 May 2008, he was commissioned as a Regular Army Quartermaster Corps second lieutenant upon graduation from Officer Candidate School (OCS).  He completed his officer basic course and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 8 November 2009 and to the rank of captain on 1 July 2011. 

3.  On 7 December 2011, the applicant assumed command of the Rear Detachment, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Aviation Regiment, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, Task Force Corsair, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

4.  In part, the investigating officer noted the applicant did not conduct periodic (cyclic) inventories during his tenure in command that would have ensured accountability of equipment and, on 18 March 2013, FLIPL #WCEXXX 13-XXX was approved with a finding of pecuniary liability against the applicant in the amount of $1,845.35 for the loss of a glass grinder.

5.  Prior to the final approval, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the findings of the FLIPL contending that the property had been missing for more than 3 years before he arrived and none of the previous commanders had documented the loss.  He was the first commander to document the loss.  He contended that he was not negligent, that his actions did not proximate loss, and that he should be relieved of liability for the loss.  He also asserted that the only formal training he had was obtained in the basic officer leadership course or by consulting regulations and on-the-job training while assigned to the aviation battalion and that it was he who was credited with establishing a Command Supply Discipline Program in the unit.

6.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 which opines that after a thorough review it was concluded that the FLIPL was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations and that the applicant did not fulfill his command responsibility of ensuring proper care, custody, safekeeping, and disposition of the equipment in question and should be held liable in accordance with the findings of the FLIPL.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  He did not respond.



7.  Army Regulation 735-5 (Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability) provides the policies and procedures for property accountability.  It provides that responsibility is the obligation of an individual to ensure government property and funds entrusted to his or her possession, command or supervision are properly used and cared for, and that proper custody and safekeeping are provided.  Command responsibility is the obligation of a commander to ensure all government property within his or her command is properly used and cared for and that proper custody and safekeeping are provided.  Command responsibility is inherent and cannot be delegated.  Accountability and each type of responsibility carry specific duties.  Financial liability can be assessed against any person who fails, through negligence or misconduct, to perform those duties and where such failure is the proximate cause to a loss to the government.
 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although it is a basic tenet that is taught to all Soldiers from the rank of private and higher that one does not sign for property that they do not have, get, or see because they will pay for it if it cannot be accounted for, it appears the property that was eventually unaccounted for was signed for by the applicant when he assumed command of the unit.

2.  While the applicant now contends that the property was never there, it does not explain why he would sign for something that was not present during an inventory of equipment.  In addition, the investigating officer noted he did not conduct periodic (cyclic) inventories during his tenure in command that would have ensured accountability of equipment.  It is further noted that at the time he rebutted the recommendation of the investigating officer that he be held liable for the loss, he contended that he had no formal training in supply accountability procedures; however, the applicant served and held the military occupational specialty of a supply specialist for over 6 years while he was in an enlisted status.

3.  In any event, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the findings and recommendations of the FLIPL that he be held liable for the loss of said equipment which was under his control as the commander.  

4.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request to reimburse him for the monies withheld to satisfy the loss that occurred under his command.



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)                                         AR20130019881



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019881



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1