RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 MARCH 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060009327 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. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his request for financial relief imposed by the Report of Survey (ROS) 24-XX, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, Georgia. 2. The applicant states that he has new compelling evidence showing that the accountable officer and the branch chief were not responsible for assigning a primary hand receipt holder for the hospital excess equipment as stated in the Board’s Discussion and Conclusions, page 12, paragraph 2. He argues that the DDEAMC Property Accountability Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for hand receipt holders and property book officers supports his claim that he was not responsible for appointing the primary hand receipt holder. The applicant maintains that the Chief of Logistics Division, the Deputy Commander for Administration, or the Chief of Staff, were responsible for appointing the hand receipt holder for the hospital commander excess equipment in accordance with the DDEAMC Property Accountability SOP. 3. The applicant provides a copy of DDEAMC SOP, e-mail, two supporting statements and various documents on purchasing equipment. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2004100344, on 28 June 2005. 2. Page 12, paragraph 2 of Docket Number AR2004100344 stated that the Report of Survey investigation adequately determined that the applicant failed to perform his duties as an accountable officer and a property book officer. The investigation showed that he did not assign excess property to a primary hand receipt holder or require/conduct a 100 percent inventory of accountable property on an annual basis or within 30 days of a change in primary hand receipt holders. 3. Paragraph 4b of the DDEAMC Property Accountability Standard Operating Procedures stated that the Chief of each major activity (department, division, or separate activity) will be responsible to furnish Property Management Branch, Logistics Division, DDEAMC, the name of each hand receipt holder for his activity. This must be furnished in writing to the Logistics division at least two weeks prior to the change of any hand receipt holder for transmission to the Commanding General or designated representative for approval. 4. The supporting statement provided by a retired colonel provides insight into the accountability of excess equipment issues during his (colonel) tenure as the Chief, Logistic Division, DDEAMC. A former co-worker provided a statement attesting to the applicant’s exceptional performance of duty, and supervisory and management skills of accountability and supply operations. Additionally, the applicant provided an article from the internet dated 30 March 2004, that shows that several government officials from DDEAMC were either accused or convicted of theft of government property. However, these statements and articles do not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to reverse the Board’s original decision. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In the previous case, it was determined that the applicant was appointed as the Chief, Property Management Branch and DDEAMC Property Book Officer. As such, he had supervisory, direct, and custodial responsibility for the missing property. Additionally, the applicant was the command’s subject matter expert on property management and accountability. The applicant failed to ensure that a 100 percent inventory was conducted on Hand Receipt AAX, the excess property hand receipt, or that it was even signed by a hand receipt holder. He also failed to conduct a 100 percent inventory on Hand Receipt AAX prior to signing the hand receipt and becoming the primary hand receipt holder on 30 January 1998. 2. The applicant argues that page 12, paragraph 2 of Docket Number AR2004100344 states that he was responsible for assigning a primary hand receipt holder. However, he states that the DDEAMC SOP specifically assigns that responsibility to the Chief of each major activity. The Board acknowledges that paragraph 2 merely states that the applicant “did not assign excess property to a primary hand receipt holder” and not that the responsibility for assigning a primary hand receipt holder fell under the applicant’s purview. 3. The applicant’s main argument for reconsideration is that as the Chief, Property Management Branch, it was not his responsibility to assign the primary hand receipt holder, which is not justification to warrant approval of his request. Evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was the primary hand receipt holder for Hand Receipt AAX and as such, he was responsible for the accountability of the property listed on that hand receipt. 4. Therefore, the overall merits of the case, including the copy of DDEAMC SOP and the applicant’s argument are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___LE___ ___LB __ __MF___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR AR2004100344, dated on 28 June 2005. ______ Lester Echols ______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060009327 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20070329 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 116.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.