BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008600 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008600 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160008600 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, reversal of the recommendation in his DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL)), Number WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX, dated 8 July 2013, and reimbursement of $5,415.30. 2. The applicant states: a.  He is appealing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) due to the unjust finding of negligence at each previous decision level and he has exhausted all administrative remedies. b.  There was no loss of property. He did not have the full ability to inspect all the basic issue items (BII) and components of end items (COEI) and create non-existent shortage annexes during the change of command inventories in March 2012. c.  He was wrong by assuming the conversations with his battalion and brigade executive officers regarding the issue would be sufficient to clarify the change in the shortages list and the dollar figure increase when departing command; however, during his command they corrected the annexes and conducted a 100-percent inventory from 12 March 2013 to 21 March 2013, even after the scheduled change of command was changed. The increase was not unexpected, which is why the FLIPL was not initiated until over 180 days after he left command. d.  The change of command memorandum signed by him and Captain (CPT) S____ on 17 July 2013 listed only one FLIPL in existence, the FLIPL for item Q12859 (Rack Storage: Pistol). However, the FLIPL, dated 8 July 2014, listed the date of discovery of loss and date of initiation as 8 July 2014. This was not possible because he would have been the initiating authority if it had been initiated prior to 17 July 2013 and the FLIPL would have been included in the change of command memorandum. The FLIPL was not initiated prior to or during his command. e.  CPT S____ backdated the DD Form 200 by several months to indicate that the property was lost prior to the change of command. f.  In addition to a backdated DD Form 200 and improper investigation by the investigating officer (IO), other procedural errors violated his due process rights in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5 (Property Accountability – Property Accountability Policies), paragraph 13-42. g.  The delay of greater than 90 days made it impossible to acquire the proper shortage annexes to show no loss of property or accountability occurred because all shortage annexes and key property documents from his command were destroyed on 17 July 2014. h.  In accordance with his unit's standard operating procedures, on 17 July 2013, the shortage annexes and other documents from his command were destroyed after the change of command out-brief to the brigade executive officer, Major (MAJ) J____ B____, when he determined that all property was properly accounted for and that no FLIPL would be required. i.  Had he or CPT S____ initiated the FLIPL on 8 July 2014, as stated in block 1 (Date Initiated) of the DD Form 200, then this evidence would have been preserved and would have been considered. j.  In addition to the IO failing to conduct a proper investigation, he failed to consider the evidence he submitted as his rebuttal. The IO submitted the FLIPL to the appointing authority prior to notification of the recommendation of liability and receipt of his rebuttal material. The DD Form 200 shows the appointing authority decided his liability on 16 December 2013 based on insufficient or inaccurate information and without any consideration of matters in rebuttal. As a result, the appointing authority was biased and was unclear that the IO could have changed his position based on the information provided. k.  Had the IO complied with the due process outlined in Army Regulation 735-5, there would likely have been additional investigations and some level of reanalysis based on the information in the rebuttal packet. This did not occur. l.  There was a presumption by the approval and appellate authority that the actions of the appointing authority and the IO were correct. As such, his rebuttal, request for reconsideration, and appeal were not properly considered and the shortcomings of the investigation were allowed to stand. m.  The assessment of liability was based on an investigation that failed to follow the standards and processes outlined in Army Regulation 735-5, paragraphs 13-29 and 13-31. n.  The IO failed to "seek out all the facts that surrounded the loss or damage of government property" by failing to interview those with relevant knowledge. The IO failed to record his method of investigation or provide an account of his interviews with any person with whom he spoke, thus violating the regulatory requirement to "interview and obtain statements from all individuals whose useful testimony may assist in deciding the cause or responsibility for the loss, damage, destroyed, or theft," and to "prepare witness statements on a DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) or plain bond or ruled paper." o.  He initiated and collected all included sworn statements during his rebuttal process. In addition to sworn statements, he gathered the additional relevant evidence during his rebuttal process from the brigade property book officer. This evidence was readily available upon request according to the brigade Command Supply Discipline Program standard operating procedure. The only evidence gathered by the IO were exhibits "A through E," the excel spreadsheets. The IO failed to comply with Army Regulation 735-5 by failing to interview relevant witnesses and failing to gather available relevant evidence. p.  The initiation of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX was backdated to a time prior to CPT S____ taking command. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored memorandum, dated 6 May 2016 * Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 5 August 2012, subject: Validation of Current Document Numbers * Headquarters, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum for record, dated 13 May 2013, subject: White Falcon Command Supply Discipline Program * Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, memorandum, dated 13 January 2013, subject: Rebuttal to FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX * DD Form 200, dated 8 July 2013 * DA Form 362 (Statement of Charge/Cash Collection Voucher), dated 11 July 2013 * Company A, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 17 July 2013, subject: List of Manuals Used During Change of Command Inventory by CPT S____ * Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 17 July 2013, subject: Change of Command After Action Report * Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 18 July 2013, subject: List of Change of Command Inventory Shortages That Had No National Stock Numbers Listed * Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 28 October 2013, subject: Letter of Lateness * Headquarters, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 31 October 2013, subject: Appointment as IO – FLIPL 13-174, Delta Company Organizational Shortages FLIPL * Company C, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 11 December 2013, subject: FLIPL for Property Shortages * Headquarters, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 13 December 2013, subject: FLIPL Number 13-147 (should read Number 13-174), $36,892.07 * Army Compartment Element, Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, memorandum, dated 19 December 2013, subject: Acknowledgement of Receipt of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX * Company C, 2nd Battalion, 326th Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 31 January 2014, subject: IO Rebuttal to FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX ($36,892.07) * 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 11 February 2014, subject: Legal Review of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX (Applicant) * Headquarters, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 18 February 2014, subject: FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX ($36,892.07) * self-authored memorandum for record, dated 21 February 2014 * self-authored letter, dated 6 March 2014 * Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 31 March 2014, subject: Legal Review of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX, (Applicant) * Headquarters, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, dated 8 April 2014, subject: Request for Reconsideration, FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX ($90,391.07) * Company D training schedules for 10 March through 20 April * DA Form 7531 (Checklist and Tracking Document for FLIPL) * four DA Forms 2823 * 21 DA Forms 2062 (Hand Receipt/Annex Number) * email * Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum, undated, subject: Change of Command Inventory Shortages for (Applicant) (Outgoing) to CPT D____ W. S____ (Incoming) * XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg memorandum for record, undated, subject: Request for Extension of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX Rebuttal Period (Applicant) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Regular Army on 26 May 2007. He was promoted to first lieutenant on 26 November 2008 and he was promoted to CPT on 1 June 2010. 2. Records show he assumed command of Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, in March 2012 and he conducted his change of command inventory from 5 through 28 March 2012. On 28 March 2012, he listed a total of $32,975.91 in shortages. 3. During the period 1 through 17 July 2013, CPT S____, the incoming commander and replacement for the applicant, conducted his change of command inventory. On 17 July 2013, CPT S____ listed a total of $90,391.07 in shortages, a difference of $57,415.16 worth of unaccounted for shortages. 4. On 17 July 2013, CPT S____ submitted a memorandum to the Commander, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, subject: Change of Command After Action Report, which was signed by both him and the applicant. The memorandum showed: * one box (1,600 rounds) of 5.56 caliber ammunition was unaccounted for * all 2,113 end items were inventoried and 48 end items were indicated as short * the unit was short 13 items out of the 971 modification table of organization and equipment authorized items * the incoming commander assessed the majority of the modification table of organization and equipment shortages were not mission critical at the time * one FLIPL had been initiated for an unidentified piece of equipment valued at $797.00 and was being processed at the time by the battalion S-4 and listed as pending investigation * both CPT S____ and the applicant acknowledged they were fully confident that the property in the unit was accounted for 5. On 28 October 2013, CPT S____ submitted a letter of lateness to the Commander, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, in which he indicated FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX was turned in on time; however, it had been repeatedly returned due to changing guidance. Additionally, the total amount changed after discovering equipment that was not accounted for during the change of command. FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX was being resubmitted at the battalion level with the correct amount. 6. On 31 October 2013, an IO was appointed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the loss of Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, organizational shortages. 7. On 11 December 2013, the IO recommended holding the applicant accountable for simple negligence for failing to properly conduct an inventory of property under his command responsibility. He submitted the following facts, findings, and allocation of responsibility for FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX: a.  Facts: (1)  The applicant conducted incoming change of command inventories from 5 to 28 May 2012 and he listed shortages totaling $53,498.37. (2)  The applicant conducted a follow-on inventory to identify shortages and his listed shortages totaled $47,857.86. (3)  CPT S____ conducted incoming change of command inventories from 1 to 17 July 2013 and his listed shortages totaled $90,391.07. (4)  CPT S____'s inventory listed $36,892.07 more in property shortages than the applicant's inventory after 14 months in command of Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment. b.  Findings: (1)  The applicant had command responsibility over the property assigned to Company D, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment. He breached the command responsibility of company property by not accounting for property end items in his initial inventories. (2)  The applicant exhibited simple negligence as outlined in Army Regulation 735-5 by using outdated technical manuals to conduct his initial inventory and noting shortages. He conducted his cyclic inventories to account for major end items, not annotating shortages. (3)  The applicant's incoming change of command inventory was conducted in a hasty manner, not allowing a proper handover timeline. The change of command date had to be moved on two occasions to accommodate completion of the inventory. (4)  Item 8 (Total Cost) of his DD Form 200 notes the total cost as $0.00, as no major end items were listed. 8.  On 12 December 2013, the approval authority approved the findings and recommendations of the IO. 9. On 19 December 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notice recommending him for charges of financial liability. He requested an extension from 2 to 14 January 2014 due to the availability of legal assistance. He also submitted an undated letter from CPT K____ M. M____, Chief, Client Services, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, that also shows an extension was requested on behalf of the applicant due to the non-availability of a legal assistance attorney until 14 January 2014. 10. On 13 January 2014 (not 2013), he submitted a rebuttal to FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX in which he stated: a.  The FLIPL was incomplete, procedurally flawed, substantively incorrect, and could not be used as a basis to assess liability against him. The investigation failed to demonstrate he violated his responsibility in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5. b.  The IO improperly assumed he demonstrated simple negligence by failing to properly account for property end items in his initial inventories using outdated technical manuals to conduct initial inventories and conducting cyclic inventories to account for major end items only and not annotating shortages. c.  The IO failed to properly interview key personnel and relied on only hearsay and spreadsheets. d.  During his initial inventories, CPT A____ P____, the company executive officer, and Sergeant (SGT) B____ H____, the supply sergeant, accompanied him throughout. He accounted for all property on the property book and processed a FLIPL for 34 M-40 A1 pro-masks, which were unaccounted for by the outgoing commander due to an error in a lateral transfer. e.  He was provided a list of technical manuals by the property book officer, which CPT P____ and SGT H____ provided for use during the inventories. f.  He conducted the appropriate cyclic inventories each month. On several occasions, there were issues with layouts or shortage annexes due to the turnover of personnel. Those issues were then annotated and the appropriate sub-hand receipt holder worked with the company supply sergeant to correct his or her discrepancies. His executive officer and supply sergeant were actively involved in his Command Supply Discipline Program. g.  The IO failed to establish what items of government property were lost, damaged, or destroyed. The valuation of documents numbers that identified items on order and provided on 5 August 2012 and a list generated in the fall of 2012 by the battalion S-4 were not property inventory documents or shortage annexes. Although the generated list resembled a consolidated shortage annex, it was specifically a list of desired BIIs and COEIs to be ordered if able and was not a comprehensive listing of shortages. h.  There were items accounted for and removed from the property book prior to his outgoing change of command based on a properly processed statement of charges to SGT B____ D____. He was also informed that several items might have been found and, if true, the items were not removed from the list. i.  The investigation failed to explain how his actions directly and proximately caused the loss. No evidence was presented to show specific instances of loss or lack of accountability. The IO failed to prove how the inventories during the change of command or cyclic inventories were deficient and, if deficient, how those deficiencies resulted in the claimed loss. j.  The IO failed to notify him directly and instead forwarded the incomplete FLIPL to the appointing authority who then made his recommendation for holding him liable. The appointing authority then signed a recommendation memorandum and had the battalion S-4 notify him. This represented several procedural errors and created a situation where the appointing authority could no longer act in a neutral and impartial manner. He initially received a copy of the IO's findings and recommendations only, without exhibits. He had to coordinate with the battalion S-4 to obtain the remainder of the FLIPL. k.  The appointing authority recommended liability in excess of his monthly base pay based on a theory of simple negligence. The only potentially applicable situations where liability may exceed 1 month's base pay would be if his negligence or willful misconduct resulted in the loss, damage, destruction, or theft of government quarters, furniture/equipment issued for use in quarters, or his individual arms and equipment. None of these situations applies in his case. 11. He provided the following sworn statements: a.  SGT B____ H____ stated there were problems with the unit's Command Supply Discipline Program at the time of his arrival to the unit. Further, the applicant's ability to conduct inventories was severely affected by the previous commander's inability to participate in his own change of command and a sensitive item container not arriving from another location until a day or two prior to the applicant's own change of command. He ensured the applicant's change of command inventories were conducted with the proper technical manuals and inventory procedures. He and the executive officer scheduled the monthly cyclic inventories conducted by the applicant. b.  CPT A____ J. P____ stated the applicant's whole inventory process was more hurried than would have been preferred due to the late arrival of containers from their Iraq deployment. The applicant used current technical manuals during cyclic inventories. He was not sure of the exact extent of the unit's shortage annexes prior to the applicant's arrival. c.  CPT A____ P____ stated the applicant inventoried all property using current technical manuals during cyclic inventories to account for major end items, COEIs, and BIIs, but he was unable to fully inventory all BIIs within the sensitive items connex due to it returning late from the Operation New Dawn deployment. The applicant's change of command inventory was conducted in a hasty manner. d.  Sergeant First Class H____ C____ stated the applicant conducted cyclic inventories with all senior company leadership present. Further, besides inspecting the equipment before and after every field exercise, monthly inspections were conducted. Company D began with a shortage annex until the shortages were filled and the unit was resourced 100 percent on all assigned equipment. He questioned how that equipment came up missing between the short time of his and the applicant's departure. 12. On 31 January 2014, the IO provided a rebuttal to the applicant's rebuttal of FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX. He recommended holding the applicant liable for simple negligence for failing to properly conduct an inventory of property under his command responsibility and a reduced financial liability for extenuating and mitigating circumstances based on the allocated time for initial inventories as stated in the 2nd Battalion, 82nd Infantry Regiment, Guide for FLIPL Officer, dated January 2012. 13. On 11 February 2014, the brigade judge advocate reviewed the investigation for FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX and determined the applicant could be held financially liable because of the preponderance of evidence established the four elements of responsibility, culpability, proximate cause, and loss required under Army Regulation 735-5, paragraph 13-29. He further stated, in part: a.  The applicant had command responsibility over the supply systems within Company D based on the nature of his position; he increased the amount of loss by approximately $36,000.00 and he was unable to show he took actions to reduce the exiting shortages during his 16 months in command. b.  The applicant was correct in his rebuttal when he stated the limit of his liability was 1 month's base pay. The equipment was not issued for his personal use, but rather was organizational equipment. He recommended approval of the FLIPL and assignment of financial liability to the applicant in the amount of $5,415.30. 14. On 18 February 2014, the approval authority for FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX notified the applicant he was being held financially liable in the amount of $5,415.30 for the loss of government property and he was advised of his rights relative to the matter. 15. On 21 February 2014, he acknowledged receipt of his financial liability for FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX. 16. On 6 March 2014, he requested reconsideration of the decision for FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX. 17. On 31 March 2014, CPT S____ K____, Administrative Law Attorney, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, determined the approval authority's decision to hold the applicant financially liable in FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX was legally sufficient. 18. On 8 April 2014, the Deputy Commanding General for Operations, Headquarters, 82nd Airborne Division, requested reconsideration of the approval authority's decision to hold the applicant financially liable in FLIPL WABBAA-13-174-XXXXXX. The available records are void of any evidence a response was provided to the request. 19. His Master Military Pay Account shows a debt was established in the amount of $5,415.30. This debt was paid in full on 31 October 2015. 20. On 27 June 2016, the Director of Supply Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, provided an advisory opinion wherein he recommended sustainment of the financial liability assessed as recommended by the approving authority. He further stated: a.  After a thorough review, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, concluded the FLIPL was conducted in accordance with Army Regulation 735-5. b.  The applicant, as the company commander, did not fulfill his "command responsibility" of ensuring proper care, custody, safekeeping, and disposition of the equipment noted. 21. On 27 June 2016, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for review and an opportunity to respond. He did not respond within the suspense period. REFERENCES: 1. 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 an IO's responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss, damage, or destruction of government property listed in 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 government property if they were negligent or committed willful misconduct and their negligence or willful misconduct was the proximate cause of that loss, damage, or destruction. a.  The following terms are defined: (1)  Command Responsibility. The obligation of a commander to ensure all Government property within their command is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody and safekeeping of Government property are provided. Command responsibility is inherent in command and cannot be delegated. It is evidenced by assignment to a command position at any level and includes: (a)  Ensuring the security of all property of the command, whether in use or in storage. (b)  Observing subordinates to ensure their activities contribute to the proper custody, care, use, and safekeeping of all property within the command. (c)  Enforcing all security, safety, and accounting requirements. (d)  When necessary, taking administrative or disciplinary measures. (2)  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. (3)  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. b.  Paragraph 13-29 (Financial Liability Officer's Responsibility) states a financial liability officer's responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss or damage of government property listed on the DD Form 200 and to determine if assessment of financial liability is warranted. That determination must be determined from the facts developed during a thorough and impartial investigation. However, before beginning the investigation, the financial liability officer 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. c.  Paragraph 13-31d states to interview and obtain statements from all individuals whose useful testimony may assist in deciding the cause of or responsibility for the loss, damage, destruction, or theft of the property listed on the DD Form 200. For losses or damages previously investigated by a board of officers, military police, or other authorized official, obtain a copy of the report or extracted information and attach it to the DD Form 200 as an exhibit. d.  Paragraph 13-43 provides that when an individual has been notified that financial liability has been approved, the individual should, with the advice of legal counsel, thoroughly review the FLIPL packet provided, then decide whether to request reconsideration of the approving authority's decision. The individual should submit requests for reconsideration by memorandum through his or her immediate commander to the approving authority. The individual should submit requests for reconsideration only on the basis of legal error. e.  Paragraph 13-51 provides that the term "request for reconsideration" refers to an application to the appeal authority challenging the decision of the approving authority in assessing financial liability. Requests for reconsideration will be submitted to the approving authority who acted on the FLIPL. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. It is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was the company commander and he had command responsibility over the supply system within his company. 2. Although he alleges all company equipment was accounted for and shortages were identified, his replacement identified additional shortages he failed to account for. An investigation was conducted and government equipment was determined to be lost while he was in command. 3. There was no error or injustice in holding him financially liable for the loss of government property. 4. The ABCMR is not an investigative agency. Furthermore, absent the complete facts and circumstances, the ABCMR does not normally reexamine issues of financial liability. This is the IO's and approval authority's function and it will not be upset by the ABCMR unless the determination is unsupported by the evidence. The applicant in this case was advised of the loss and afforded the opportunity to submit matters in rebuttal. His rebuttal was considered and the approving authority concluded he was financially liable for the loss of government property in the amount of $5,415.30. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008600 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160008600 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2