IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003363 BOARD VOTE: ____x____ ___x___ ___x ____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003363 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 he was not financially liable for the $3,635.70 indicated in FLIPL Number WBGUX2-14-082-0xxx * reimburse the applicant any amount of the $3,635.70 already collected from his pay as a result of these Proceedings _____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003363 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, correction of his military records to show that he was not liable for the loss of government property in the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) (WBGUX2-14-082-0xxx) that was conducted by the 45th Sustainment Brigade in Afghanistan. He also requests the garnishment of pay in the amount of $3,635.70 be overturned and restoration of the garnished pay that has been collected. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He was the supply sergeant for an engineer company deploying to Afghanistan. There was a mix up involving the number of containers needed to secure the unit's equipment. After the unit trained at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA, the equipment was shipped in containers from Fort Irwin to Fort Bliss. The equipment arrived at Fort Bliss prior to the unit arriving in October 2013. They came up with a list of equipment needed for the deployment and the rest of the equipment would be shipped back to the home station at West Palm Beach, FL. b. He was sent from the home station to Fort Bliss to inventory the containers. His chain of command claimed that he did not prepare the proper forms. When the container(s) were shipped to Afghanistan, the unit discovered several sensitive items including radios, thermal sights, night vision devices, and aiming devices were missing. The brigade commander ordered an investigation that found some of the officers and enlisted Soldiers, including himself, negligent. c. He is in debt in the amount of $3,635.70. The finance office started deducting $302.98 each month from his pay on 1 December 2014, because of a FLIPL that was initiated in Afghanistan in May 2014. On 7 July 2014, he was found partially liable. He submitted a rebuttal to the battalion S-4 on 23 July 2014. Then, in December 2014, he noticed money was being deducted from his account without any notification. He submitted a pay inquiry and the answer he got was the debt was originated in Kuwait. d. The debt is unjust for multiple reasons. First, he was not given any notification funds were going to be debited from his account, nor was he given an opportunity to appeal per Army Regulation (AR) 735-5 (Property Accountability and Policies), paragraph 13-44. Second, the unit was gone 7 months before the FLIPL was initiated. Third, the memorandum holding him accountable stated he failed proper storage and accountability from Fort Irwin, CA, to Fort Bliss, TX. The equipment was accounted for in Fort Bliss in November and December. The equipment was also accounted for in Afghanistan in January and February through inventories. The unit was taken off route clearance missions and put on gate guard and they wanted the commander out of the country. The manner in which the FLIPL was conducted did not allow him due process. The findings were completely unfair because he was never in Afghanistan nor was his signature on any of this equipment. 3. The applicant provides: * Appointment of Investigating Officer (IO) * IO Timelines * IO Findings and Recommendations of Missing Sensitive Items * Legal Review of IO findings and recommendations * Request for reconsideration * Sworn Statements * Packing List and Sensitive Items Listings * Conduct of sensitive items inventory * Leave and Earnings Statement * DD Form 200 (FLIPL) and allied documents (of another Soldier) * Memorandum of support CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. As a matter of clarity, this is a summary of the FLIPL process in AR 735-5: a. The FLIPL process starts when the appointing authority, usually a lieutenant colonel or above (most often a battalion or squadron commander), appoints a Financial Liability Officer (FLO) to investigate the facts surrounding the loss. The FLO will be a commissioned or warrant officer, a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC) or above (or a civilian employee). The FLO must be senior in grade to the individual subject to potential liability unless war or military exigency requires otherwise. b. The FLO investigates and makes initial findings as to what happened. A copy of those initial findings is then given to the individual subject to potential liability. That individual has 7 days to prepare and submit a rebuttal back to the FLO. The person will have 15 days if the findings are mailed to him or her. The FLO will consider the rebuttal along with the findings and make a recommendation about who should be held liable and in what amount. The recommendation is made to the appointing authority. c. The appointing authority reviews the FLIPL, reviews the action taken by the FLO, and either requests further investigation or concurs with the FLO’s findings. The appointing authority then forwards the FLIPL to the approving authority. The approving authority, usually a colonel (COL) or above, approves or disapproves the FLO’s recommendation. Before making his decision, the approving authority receives a legal opinion that the findings are legally sufficient and that the FLIPL was completed in accordance with AR 735-5. d. To assess liability, the approving authority must find (1) the person to be held liable had a duty/responsibility to take care of the property; (2) the person failed to carry out that duty (negligence); and (3) the person's failure led to the loss (proximate cause). The approving authority will notify the person to be charged that financial liability has been assessed. The notification will be in memorandum format and will inform the person they have the right to request reconsideration of (appeal) the approving authority's decision. e. A person held liable has 30 days to request reconsideration of the approving authority’s decision to assess liability. The request goes back to the approving authority (the FLO and the appointing authority are not involved). If the approving authority decides to continue liability, he or she will forward the request to the appeal authority. The appeal authority, usually a general officer, is the next higher commander in the chain of command. The appeal authority will examine all of the facts and the recommendations again. The decision of the appeal authority is final. 2. Having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 2001 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist). He was honorably discharged on 14 December 2007. 3. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 June 2007 and he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 August 2010. He is currently assigned to the 388th Clearance (Engineer) Company, 133rd Engineer Battalion, a troop program unit (TPU) of the USAR in West Palm Beach, FL. 4. On 20 May 2014, the brigade Commander, 82nd Sustainment Brigade, Afghanistan, appointed an IO to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surround the loss of sensitive items which included: * 2 SINGARS (Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems) * 2 ANPVS-7D Night Vision Devices * 9 Close Combat Optics (CCO) Aiming Devices * 1 AN/PAS13 Thermal Weapon Sight 5. The IO’s investigation consisted of interviews, sworn statements, emails, inventories, and other data collection. He rendered his findings and recommendations on 7 June 2014. a. The IO found the company commander (Captain (CPT) Wet---) and First Lieutenant (1LT) McG---) had command authority and were negligent and the proximate cause of the loss. He also found the applicant and Sergeant (SGT) Hin-- (another supply sergeant) had custodial responsibility and he demonstrated simple negligence by the absence of due care, and by an act or omission of a person which lacks the degree of care for the property that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under similar circumstances. The applicant failed to perform the mission he was sent to Fort Bliss on 13-16 December 2013 to perform, which was to inventory the equipment that was going to be sent to the 388th Rear Detachment. He should have stayed until all the equipment that was placed in connex boxes was properly documented and inventoried. The connex boxes should have been locked and sealed. His actions or lack of actions created the initial conditions for the loss of equipment. He prevented proper supply accountability from occurring. b. The IO recommended the company commander and the lieutenant be held financially liable. He also recommended SGT Hin-- be sent to school to become qualified in MOS 92Y and the applicant receive a letter of reprimand for not completing the mission to fully inventory the equipment that was to be put in the connex boxes and shipped back to the unit’s home station in Florida. If the proper inventory were done, this situation would have been avoided. The IO further recommended the initiation of a FLIPL be delayed until October 2014 when the unit returned to the homes station in West Palm Beach, FL. This would allow the forward unit (388th Engineer Company) and its rear detachment to balance their books and adjust receipts. It would also give each party sufficient time to respond to the FLIPL. 6. On 14 June 2014, the 45th Sustainment Brigade Judge Advocate reviewed the investigation involving the loss of sensitive items and found it legally sufficient. However, the Judge Advocate recommended the brigade commander not approve the IO’s recommendations, the brigade commander should wait until their redeployment to initiate the FLIPL, as this would violate the regulation’s timelines. The Judge Advocate attorney stated: * the investigation complied with requirements and there were no material errors * there was sufficient evidence to support the findings and the recommendations were consistent with the findings * the 2 SINGARS radios and one of the CCOs were accounted for * the total loss of the remaining equipment was $28,935, depreciated down by 25 percent to $21,701.25 * the applicant and SGT Hin-- displayed negligence in the performance of the inventory at Fort Bliss in December 2013 * the proximate cause of the loss was the company commander CPT Wet---‘s failure to properly exercise command supply discipline and ensure inventories were conducted in a proper manner 7. On 14 May 2014, the DD Form 200 (FLIPL) WBGUX2-14-82-0xxx was initiated. The DD Form 200 the applicant provides show the following: a. The date of loss discovery, and initiation of the FLIPL, is listed as 14 May 2014. The author, SGT Leslie Hin--, Supply Sergeant, 388th Engineer Company, Forward Operating Base Shank, Afghanistan. The items lost are described as 2 Night Vision, AN/PVS 7D, at $2,748 each for a total of $5,496. b. The responsible officer, listed as CPT W---, Commander of the 388th Engineer Company. He placed an "X" in the "No" block that says "Negligence or abuse evident/suspected?" and he placed the comment "Request investigation to ensure all policies and procedures were followed." He dated this form on 9 June 2014. c. The appointing authority, listed as COL Gregory B---, Commander, 45th Sustainment Brigade placed an "X" in the "Disapprove" recommendation block and hand-wrote "Concur with IO with the addition of holding [Applicant] and SGT Hin-- also financially liable." d. The approving authority, identified as Brigadier General Flem W----, Commander, 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, did not sign this form. e. The back page of the DD Form 200 shows no entries in the "Findings and Recommendations" block. The individual charged did not list his information or sign this form. The Accountable Officer is listed as CW2 Peter Fo----, the Property Book Officer. He signed this form in Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan on 17 June 2014. 8. On 7 July 2014, by memorandum, the appointing authority (Commander, 45th Sustainment Brigade) notified the applicant that he was being recommended for charges of financial liability to the government in the amount of $3,635.70 for the loss of government property investigated under subject investigation of property loss. He added that if the approving authority approved his recommendation, the applicant might be held financially liable due simple negligence. He was advised of the reference to this debt/loss as AR 735-5, of his right to inspect the record related to the debt and to seek legal advice. However, there is no indication he signed this document. 9. Although he did not sign the brigade commander's notification of debt, on 23 July 2014, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, through the Commander, 388th Engineer Company to the Commander, 45th Sustainment Brigade. He stated: a. The purpose of this memorandum is to rebut the recommendation of financial liability in accordance with AR 735-5, dated 28 February 2005. The FLIPL findings and recommendations failed to provide sufficient justification to hold him liable for the loss of government property. In addition, he did not believe he was liable for the loss of government property because he was neither negligent, nor did an act or omission on his part proximately cause the loss. Therefore, he was appealing to the approving authority to release him from any financial liability in this matter. b. AR 735-5, paragraph 13-29 provides that "individuals may be held financially liable for [loss or damage] of Government property if they were negligent... and their negligence...is the proximate cause of that [loss or damage]." In other words, imposition of liability under a FLIPL can only occur when the investigation establishes four factors: (1) responsibility for property, combined with (2) a negligent act or omission while maintaining or accounting for the property, (3) which proximately caused (4) loss or damage. Unless all four factors are present, a FLIPL cannot be used to form the basis for financial liability. He contested the assertion that he committed a negligent act and that this act was the proximate cause of the loss of the property in question. c. According to the FLIPL investigation, he was being held financially responsible for sensitive items lost during transfer from Fort Irwin to Fort Bliss during the September/October 2013 timeframe; however, during the time of the loss, he had no control or responsibility for the items; those items were inventoried and accounted for during a 100 percent inventory in November 2013 while at Fort Bliss, an inventory in December 2013, an inventory in January 2014 in Afghanistan, and yet another inventory in February 2014. There was absolutely no way that he could be the proximate cause of or be held responsible for the loss during transfer in September/October 2013 when in fact those very items were inventoried, accounted for, and "no discrepancies noted" in November 2013, December 2013, January 2014, and February 2014. d. From 9 September through 17 October 2013, he was on temporary duty at Fort Irwin as the only Torch Party personnel and one of five trail party Soldiers. Therefore, he did not have time to pack the sensitive item containers. That was done by the Headquarters Platoon Sergeant and Training NCO, SFC Abb----. SFC Abb--- “maintained control of the keys to the container before they left West Palm Beach, FL all the way to the containers leaving Fort Irwin, CA.” He (the applicant) was too busy clearing the company and was not present during the shipping and packing of the sensitive item containers that he is being held partially liable for. e. On 25 October 2013, he had a meeting with CPT We-- (the company commander) and Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Br--- (the battalion commander) during the Yellow Ribbon Event #. Also present were SFC Abb--, 1LT Har---, and First Sergeant (1SG) Bou---. At that meeting, CPT We-- told him they did not need him as the supply sergeant; they could do it themselves. It was then that he handed his keys over to SFC Abb-- and had nothing to do with CPT We--'s property. f. On 19 November 2013, SGT Hin-- and CPT We-- conducted a 100 percent inventory while at Fort Bliss and all items in question were accounted for at that time both AN/PVS-7D, all 9 Sight Reflex Collimator, and both Thermal Sights. The following day on 20 November 2013, a sensitive item inventory took place by SGT Hin-- and CPT We--- and the 2 AN/PVS-7D and 2 thermal sights were accounted for on this second inventory. g. On 17 December 2013, CPT We---- and SGT Hin-- conducted another sensitive item inventory, during this inventory only the 2 AN/PVS-7D and 2 thermal sights were accounted for because the 100 CCO's are not considered sensitive items. h. On 27 January 2014, in Afghanistan, 1LT Ha-----signed the Primary Hand Receipt (for their) unit identification code. Included on this hand receipt are the items he (the applicant) was being held partially liable for. A copy of CPT We--'s signed Primary Hand Receipt was requested, but not received. On 15 February 2014, CPT We-- and SFC Riv--conducted a sensitive items inventory again accounting for the 2 AN/PVS-7D and the 2 Thermal Sights. i. In conclusion, the items he was being accused of losing were accounted for while at Fort Bliss during multiple inventories and accounted for again while the unit was deployed in Afghanistan. Each one of these inventories were blessed by an NCO and the responsible officer CPT We--, not only did he sign the memorandums he also included the statement "no discrepancies noted." Paragraph 2-8a(1) of AR 735-5 states that commanders are obligated to ensure all Government property within their command is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, safekeeping, and disposition are provided. Command responsibility is inherent in command and cannot be delegated. It was not until March 2014 when the property book officer (PBO) inspected 388th Engineer Company in Afghanistan did the issue of missing sensitive items come up. This was more than 180 days after CPT We-- told him (the applicant) was no longer his supply sergeant and after accounting for each of the sensitive items in November 2013, December 2013, January 2014, and February 2014. 10. On 15 June 2015, the Chief of Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, requested the applicant submit additional documentation related to the referenced FLIPL. Specifically, the FLIPL (DD Form 200), the approving authority decision, and the decision regarding the appeal request. The applicant sent hand receipts, a copy of the investigation, the brigade commander's notification, and his appeal. However, his packet remained incomplete. 11. On 9 September 2015, the Board requested an advisory opinion from the Army G-4 in the processing of this case. However, the Army G-4 was unable to render an advisory opinion and stated the FLIPL packet was incomplete to render an equitable and fair advisory opinion. 12. On 28 January 2016, the Garrison Attorney, U.S. Army Garrison, Miami, responded to the Board regarding this FLIPL. The attorney stated the applicant had authorized her to write on his behalf. He came to their office for assistance. He had made several attempts to obtain any sort of decision memorandum assessing liability. The last attempt was in October 2015; but to this date, the applicant had not received any response from the unit. The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the FLIPL in July 2014 but did not receive a response from the unit until the debt began to be collected in December 2014. Despite repeated requests, the unit has not provided a decision memorandum. It was safe to presume at this point the unit never properly did a decision memorandum. Therefore, the debt was improperly collected and the money collected should be returned to the Soldier. She requests correction of the assessment of this liability since the FLIPL was improperly done by the command. 13. There is no indication the applicant: * requested his complete FLIPL from his higher headquarters (at the brigade level) or the USAR G-4 at Fort Bragg, NC * requested remission or cancellation of the indebtedness under the provisions of AR 600-4 (Remission or Cancellation of Indebtedness for Enlisted Members) REFERENCES: 1. AR 735-5 prescribes the basic policies and procedures in accounting for Army property and sets the requirements for formal property accounting within the Army, which includes but is not limited to defining the Command Supply Discipline Program, its intent, and implementing procedures. It specifies that commanders at all levels will ensure compliance with all policies and procedures prescribed by this regulation that apply at their level of command. AR 735-5 defines the following terms: a. Negligence – The failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances. An act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have committed, or omitted, under similar circumstances and which is the proximate cause of the loss of, damage to, or destruction of Government property. Failure to comply with existing laws, regulations, and/or procedures may be considered as evidence of negligence. b. Proximate Cause – The cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence of events unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage. Without this cause, the loss or damage would not have occurred. It is further defined as the primary moving cause, or the predominant cause, from which the loss or damage followed as a natural, direct, and immediate consequence. 2. Chapter 13 of AR 735-5 states that the purpose of a FLIPL documents the circumstances concerning the loss or damage of Government property and serves as, or supports, a voucher for adjusting the property from accountable records. It also documents a charge of financial liability assessed against an individual or entity, or provides for the relief from financial liability. Chapter 13 also states: a. An FLO’s responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss or damage of Government property listed on the DD Form 200, and determine if assessment of financial liability is warranted. That determination must be based on the facts developed during a thorough and impartial investigation. However, before beginning the investigation, the FLO must have an understanding of the terms "responsibility, culpability, proximate cause, and loss"; each term impacts upon a determination of financial liability. Individuals may be held financially liable for the loss or damage of Government property if they were negligent or have committed willful misconduct, and their negligence or willful misconduct is the proximate cause of that loss or damage. (1) Responsibility. General responsibility: The type of responsibility a person has for property determines the obligations incurred by that individual for the property. DA Pam 735–5 presents specific issues the FLO must consider before recommending financial liability. There are five types of responsibility: Command, Supervisory, Direct, Personal, and Custodial. (2) Culpability: Before a person can be held financially liable, the facts must show that they, through negligence or willful misconduct, violated a particular responsibility or duty involving the property. Simple negligence is the absence of due care, by an act or omission of a person which lacks that degree of care for the property that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under similar circumstances, to avoid the loss or damage of Government property. Gross negligence is an extreme departure from due care resulting from an act or omission of a person accountable or responsible for Government property which falls far short of that degree of care for the property that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under similar circumstances. It is accompanied by a reckless, deliberate, or wanton disregard for the foreseeable loss or damage to the property. Whether a person’s acts or omissions constitute negligence depends on the circumstances of each case. Negligence under some circumstances may not reflect negligence under other circumstances. Therefore, fully consider the following factors, as a minimum, when determining the reasonableness of a person’s conduct: the person’s age, experience, physical condition, and special qualifications; the type of responsibility the person had toward the property; the type and nature of the property; the nature, complexity, level of danger, or urgency of the activity ongoing at the time of the loss or damage of the property; the adequacy of supervisory measures or guidance for property control; the feasibility of maintaining close supervision over the property, given the nature and complexity of the organization or activity supervised; and/or the extent supervision could influence the situation considering pressing duties or lack of qualified assistants. Willful misconduct is any intentional wrongful or unlawful act or omission relating to Government property. (3) Proximate Cause: Before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person’s conduct was the “proximate” cause of the loss or damage. That is, the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage, and without which the loss/damage would not have occurred. (4) Loss: Before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person’s conduct was the "proximate" cause of the loss or damage. That is, the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage, and without which the loss or damage would not have occurred. b. Paragraph 13-22c states when the approving authority can establish from the information contained on DD Form 200, blocks 9, 10, and 12 and attached exhibits that negligence or willful misconduct was the proximate cause of the loss or damage, financial liability may be assessed. c. Paragraph 13-6 provides processing time segments for the DD Form 200. For USAR and/or Army National Guard (ARNG), under normal circumstances, do not exceed 240 calendar days total processing time. Commanders may adjust the time segments shown in these figures downward at their discretion. d. Paragraph 13-42 states a request for reconsideration of the assessment of financial liability is based on legal error. Requests for reconsideration denied by the approval authority will be forwarded to the appeal authority by the approval authority. Submission of a request for reconsideration, a hearing, remission or cancellation of indebtedness stops all collection action, pending a decision on the request made by the appropriate official. e. Paragraph 13-43 states when the approving authority does not reverse their original decision to approve financial liability, the request for reconsideration becomes an appeal, which will be forwarded to the appeal authority by the approving authority. The request for reconsideration will set forth, in detail, any new evidence offered, and provide rationale why financial liability is not appropriate. f. Paragraph 13-44 states the approving authority, upon receipt of a request for reconsideration, will review any new evidence offered, and make a decision to either reverse the previous decision assessing financial liability against the individual or recommend the continuation of the assessment of financial liability. A request for reconsideration will be reviewed only on the basis of legal error (that is, the request must establish that the facts of the case do not support an assessment of financial liability). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant seeks relief from financial liability imposed against him by the FLIPL that was initiated in Afghanistan regarding the loss of sensitive items prior to the unit's deployment. 2. An investigation by an IO determined there was a loss of sensitive items including SINGARS radios, night vision devices, aiming devices, and weapon sights. The IO found the company commander and one of the lieutenants had command responsibility and their conduct was the proximate cause for the loss of the equipment. The IO recommended both be held financially liable. The IO also found the applicant and another supply sergeant had collateral responsibility and both were negligent but their actions or lack of actions were not the proximate cause. The IO recommended the applicant be reprimanded and the other sergeant be school-trained. 3. A military attorney reviewed the investigation and found it legally sufficient, supported by the evidence, and no material error was noted. The attorney recommended the initiation of a FLIPL and a FLIPL was in fact initiated. However, the FLIPL pertains to another Soldier, not the applicant. The appointing authority recommended disapproval and hand wrote "concur with IO to add the applicant and the other supply sergeant also financially liable." It appears the hand-written entry became the basis for the applicant's financial liability, although the exact amount is not clearly indicated. 4. The evidence clearly established that the applicant was negligent. He was the unit supply sergeant, sent by the commander to Fort Bliss to conduct an inventory to prevent the loss of property. In the eyes of the IO and the brigade commander, the applicant clearly failed in that regard. 5. Nevertheless, despite the applicant's failure in performing his duties, the FLIPL itself is riddled with violations. * first, there is no specific FLIPL form that identifies what specific items the applicant lost * second, the approving authority did not sign off on SGT Hin--'s FLIPL approving it; yet, the PBO signed his name on the back of this form * third, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, albeit not based on material error, and his request was never acted upon * fourth, the request for reconsideration should have stopped any collection action until a decision was made on the request; there is no evidence this happened * fifth, despite an attorney's contact with the applicant’s chain of command, no response was provided regarding the FLIPL 6. These administrative and due process errors warrant overturning the decision in FLIPL Number WBGUX2-14-082-0xxx and granting him the requested relief. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003363 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003363 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2