PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  29 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR199024516

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that $1,902.00, collected from his pay to compensate for damages to a helicopter, be returned to him.

3.  The applicant states that he was charged one month pay for an incident of damage to a helicopter in which the surveying officer never proved negligence on his part.  The pilot in command who acknowledged sole responsibility for the mishap did not pay at all.  Review of the Report of Survey and the evidence by the Judge Advocate Chief of Administrative Law Division also found that he was not liable for the damage.  The applicant provides a copy of the report of survey and related documents.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he, an aviation Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), was a co-pilot of a helicopter and was undergoing proficiency flight evaluation under the supervision of the CW3 Pilot in Command (PC) who was also the instructor pilot.  On 12 May 199, at Andalusia Airport near Fort Rucker, Alabama, the applicant started the helicopter engine on instruction from the PC.  As the engine started up, it was discovered that the rear main rotor blade tie-down had not been released.  Shut down was immediately initiated.  The third member of the crew, another aviation CW2 undergoing proficiency flight evaluation who was serving as the crew fireman, then released the tie-down.  The main rotor blade rotated twice with the tie-down attached.  The metal clip on the end of the tie-down struck the tail rotor blades twice, damaging them.  There was confusion over who did what on the “thru-flight” check list and who was responsible for the damage.  A Report of Survey was conducted which found all three warrant officers negligent and liable for costs of the damage.  The damage cost was $12,389.  On 17 October 1994, the Aviation Training Brigade Commander confirmed the survey findings and fined the applicant and the CW2 crew fireman one month pay, $1,902.00.  For unknown reason, the CW3 PC was not fined.

5.  The applicant stated in the Report of Survey that he joined the crew after the thru-flight check list was already in progress and after a point when the rotor blade tie-downs would have already been released.  He assumed that rotor blades had been released.  Further, he started the helicopter on the instruction of the PC.  The PC did write a statement that he was solely at fault.  In a legal review of the Report of Survey on 27 March 1995, the Fort Rucker Judge Advocate Chief of Administrative Law Division advised the Aviation Training Brigade Commander that the PC and other CW2 were clearly financially liable for the damage but that the applicant could be relieved from financial liability as it appeared that he may not have been negligent.  On 6 April 1999, the Aviation Training Brigade Commander considered the legal review but confirmed that all three warrant officers were liable.

6.  This case was reviewed on 17 August 1999 by the Commander, Training and Doctrine Command, under whose command the Fort Rucker Aviation Training Brigade falls.  The review concluded that the charges of financial liability against the respondent should be reversed and that the applicant should be refunded any monies collected.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant should be relieved of financial liability for the damage to the helicopter and that he should be refunded that amount collected from his pay, $1,902.00.

2.  Based on the review of the report of survey by the Fort Rucker Judge Advocate Chief of Administrative Law Division and the Commander, Training and Doctrine Command, the applicant’s record should be changed to show that he was not negligent or at fault in this incident of damage to the helicopter on 
12 May 1994.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected for the individual concerned by:

	a.  refunding him $1,902.00; and 

	b.  showing that he was not negligent or at fault in the incident of damage to a helicopter on 12 May 1994 as reported in the Fort Rucker Report of Survey 2-94, UH-1H # 64-12721.

BOARD VOTE:  

__GP___  ___CP___  __CG___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___George D. Paxson____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024516	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  116.01	Report of Survey	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.