ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000131 APPLICANT REQUESTS: relief from the financial debt of $828.44 associated with the Financial Liability Investigation Property Loss (FLIPL). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Memorandum for Record (MFR) – Request Army Board for Correction of Military Records to Overturn Appeal Decision FLIPL dated 6 October 2016 * DA Form 7531 (Checklist and Tracking Document for Financial Liability Investigations of Property Loss) * DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss) dated 26 May 2016 * MFR – Findings and Recommendations of Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 10 July 2016 * MFR – Legal Review of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 11 July 2016 * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) * DD Form 1750 (Packing List) dated 16 February 2016 * DA Form 2062 (Hand Receipt) dated 16 February 2016 * Unit Hand Receipt dated 27 January 2016 * MFR – Law Enforcement Report dated 6 May 2016 * Photos * MFR – Appeal of Investigation of Property Loss dated 28 July 2016 * Email communications * DA 3161 (Request for Issue or Turn-In) dated 22 July 2016 * MFR - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 21 August 2016 * MFR - Supplementary Legal Review of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 21 August 2016 * MFR – Appeal Decision - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 31 August 2016 * MFR – Appeal Decision - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 25 August 2016 * Defense Finance and Accounting Service Leave and Earnings Statement dated 30 September 2016 * MFR – DD Form 200 Exhibit – Statement of Lateness/Delay dated 2 June 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant states she requests relief of financial liability and that her records reflect “All concerned are relieved from financial liability of the property listed on financial liability investigation of property loss #WAB1FF-16-6-101F-OPS-100.” She states the FLIPL was not legally sufficient. Liability, if assessed should have been fair market value in the amount of $70.00 (the condition of the equipment at the time of loss to the government). The FLIPL Investigation Officer failed to conduct a proper investigation, failed to notify her of his findings/recommendation, and requested her rebuttal after the case was already closed. She further states that the appellate authority noted that there were several procedural errors with the conduct of the investigation and therefore she should not have been held liable for loss of equipment. She contests that all levels of command involved failed to address the incorrect depreciation value that was utilized as well as the incompetence of the Investigative Officer (IO) to conduct a thorough investigation. She provides the following items of contention: a. She did not request a reconsideration of the FLIPL findings through the Approving Authority because she was never notified of the right to submit for a reconsideration. She feels that the approving authority is biased and had preconceived notions regarding the events surrounding the actual incident. In fact, despite her appeal, he failed to review the additional evidence provided when making his determination. He did however erroneously request an additional sworn statement instead of making a decision. She challenged his actions citing that they were not in accordance with the applicable regulatory guidance. In response, he decided to uphold his decision stating that she failed to provide another rebuttal. b. She then sought assistance from the appellate authority, He denied her request stating that a decision had already been made. No further decision was required. Her appeal was denied. c. She then sought assistance at the next level through of the 101st Airborne Division. also denied her request stating that a legal review had been conducted. The attorney involved determined that the presented documentation associated with the FLIPL was legally sufficient. No further action needed to be taken despite her contention with the legal sufficiency of the investigation and its conduct. d. She then filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint with the XVIII Airborne Corps because she lacked trust in her current commands IG office, especially since they seemingly did not attempt to investigate her claim of the legal inefficiency of the FLIPL conducted. However the IG would not investigate the command’s actions until after she initiated her request through the ABCMR. 2. In a thorough explanation of the facts supporting her contention with the legal sufficiency of the investigation conducted she highlights the following determinations: a. Negligence - The IO stated in his findings and recommendations that it was unreasonable for her to not recover her properly secured tough box when notified by her leadership and that the delayed reporting loss by several days impacted the probability of recovery. Her appeal addressed this and provided proof that several days had not elapsed. There were only three days utilized to conduct a causative search of the area. She further contested that she was not negligent in her actions and that the “tough box” in question was previously secured in her room and then taken to the motor pool during the inventory layout. Her actions were standard practice as it pertained to the conduct of inventories. She also provided evidence to show that the tough box was properly secured prior to it being broken into. The lock was still affixed to the box, however the locking mechanism had been broken off. b. Proximate Cause – The IO stated in his findings and recommendations that her failure to retrieve the tough box containing the laptop was the proximate cause of the loss. She contests that this is untrue as the tough box was in her possession and stored in her room. Statements in support of this fact were provided by two other members of her command. She further contends that the IO did not properly interview all parties involved, to include herself. Had he done so, he would have determined that the proximate cause was the unlawful access of the tough box. c. Procedural Errors – The FLIPL is legally insufficient because the request for reconsideration procedures were not followed. The supplemental legal review was conducted on 21 August 2016, however the original legal review was dated 11 July 2016. She was not properly notified or provided with an opportunity to submit a rebuttal as required by the applicable regulation. Further, she was not notified in writing. To date, she has still not been notified of her right to file an appeal through the ABCMR. In summation she contests that the approving authority is not treating all Soldiers fairly. With regards to properly securing the laptop, she states that she consistently provided evidence to reflect that she did not leave her laptop in a tough box in the back of the vehicle for months. In fact, she provided proof that the laptop was placed in the shop when Captain issued a false statement indicating that she left the computer in her tough box without taking action. In support of these actions she provides a detailed timeline covering the period of 21 February 2016 (when she arrived in Kuwait) through 31 August 2016 (when the appellate authority, acknowledges a myriad of rights violations and procedural errors in the conduct of the investigation, however he upholds the approval authorities founded determination). d. She also points out that the command failed to have a solid plan to be implemented with regards to the prepositioning of equipment that was sent to Kuwait prior to her arrival. She was required to sign for this equipment to be held in an unsecure area, in absence of a storage container, required fencing or barbed wire. She was supposed to relinquish the equipment over to “a commander” once they arrived in theater. She was signed for the equipment, however her leadership was unconcerned about her not having a secured area to store her tough boxes. her commander, admitted to knowing that she was storing equipment in the back of the military vehicles. He lacked concern about the properties physical security because the items were on the Operations Company property book and not his up until April when the Battalion commander made him sign for the equipment. e. In conclusion, she requests remission of financial liability associated with the loss of this equipment based upon the provided preponderance of evidence that she has provided, the myriad of assumptions, false statements, violation of her rights and failure to conduct a thorough investigation. She further contests that she has proven that the laptop was unserviceable and was not secured in the back of the government vehicle for several weeks as stated by her commander. She proved it was standard practice to layout equipment overnight in Kuwait. She proved that her equipment was locked/secured in a tough box. She provided evidence in her request for reconsideration and should have been relieved of financial liability at that time. The additional, statement was erroneously solicited, and the approving authority at the Battalion level, Lieutenant Colonel wanted her to submit another rebuttal to her initial rebuttal. The approving authority, LTC failed to follow the regulatory guidance throughout the entire process and to date has not provided her with a written notification of her right to reconsideration of the decision prior to forwarding her appeal as provided in the Legal Review. If remission of financial liability may not be granted, she requests proper value of the unserviceable laptop be established at $70, the correct depreciation and fair market value utilizing the applicable regulatory guidance. The IO failed to conduct a proper investigation, provided false statement and by his own admission failed to properly secure his own equipment for weeks. This practice adds additional merit to her claim of his personal bias and incompetence to serve as an IO for her incident after a military police investigation was conducted, but in the case of anther Soldiers incident, wherein he wrote his off as a “Short FLIPL” in absence of an investigation and without additional statements required to support his claim. This further supports the perception that is not “fair and impartial” in his treatment of all Soldiers. Might this be because the other Soldier was Caucasian or a senior enlisted (Sergeants Major) or could it be the presence of a personal relationship? 3. A review of the applicant’s available service records reflects the following: a. On 30 May 1986 she enlisted in the Army Reserve for 8 years. b. On 27 August 1986 she was ordered to active duty. c. On 16 January 1987 she was released from active duty and returned to the Army Reserve. d. On 15 October 1991 she reenlisted in the Army for 4 years. e. On 12 January 2016 (Order# CP-012-0071) she was deployed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve to Kuwait on or about 26 February 2016 for 270 days. f. On 2 May 2016 (DA Form 7531) reflects that the loss of government equipment was identified. The search for the lost equipment (laptop, printer with 4 printer and a power cord) was concluded on 26 May 2016. At that time there was no evidence of neglect or abuse evident. The initial search revealed that the locked container that the items were stored in was forcibly broken into. The loss was due to criminal activity. However, the appointing authority disapproved the loss determination and therefore directed that an Investigative Officer (IO) be appointed. g. On 8 June 2016 (DD Form 200) was appointed to be the IO. h. On 10 July 2016 (MFR – Findings and Recommendations of FLIPL) the IO provided the following findings: i. On 16 February 2016 the applicant signed for the laptop. ii. On 5 April 2016 the applicant inventoried her tough box accounting for the laptop; the reviewed hand receipt was digitally signed on 10 April 2016; the initial sworn statement was illegible, so a replacement statement was provided. iii. The initial value of the laptop was $1104.52; current market value is $70, however this is not applicable because the item is not available to be properly evaluated. iv. In absence of the laptop, depreciation value may be assessed at 5 percent per year of service; maximum of 75 percent. v. Since the time in service cannot be determined, a standard of 25 percent was used resulting in a $828.44 final laptop value be determined. vi. Sufficient evidence provided resulted in the determination that the applicant was negligent in her responsibility to maintain accountability of the property (simple negligence). vii. Considering the inevitable logistical uncertainty associated within a deployed environment for personnel and property, there were extenuating circumstances involved in the loss of equipment. viii. Recommendation that the applicant be held liable for the property loss under simple negligence for the depreciated value of $828.44 i. On 7 June 2016 the appointing authority approved the recommendation presented by the IO finding the applicant liable for the loss of equipment and should therefore be charged $828.44. j. On 10 November 2016 she returned from her deployment. k. On 30 September 2017 (Order# 093-0609) she was released from active duty and placed on the retired list effective 1 October 2017. 4. The applicant provides the following: a. A DA Form 7531 (Checklist and Tracking Document for Financial Liability Investigations of Property Loss) reflective of a property loss discovered on 2 May 2016 with a preliminary search for the lost items being concluded on 26 May 2016. is indicated as the Approving Authority and as the IO. b. A DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss) dated 26 May 2016 reflective of a loss of property occurring on or about 2 May 2016. Item 13 (Appointing Authority) disapproved the recommendation presented in the initial assessment and therefore appointed an IO to conduct a formal investigation. On 17 July 2016 he approved the findings of the IO further finding the applicant liable for the loss of property in the amount of $828.44. Item 16f. (Signature) does not contain the applicant’s endorsement which would indicate that she was not informed of her right to legal advice. c. A MFR – Findings and Recommendations of Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 10 July 2016 reflective of the IO’s findings. An itemized list of these findings has been provided within paragraph 3h. of this document. d. A MFR – Legal Review of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 11 July 2016 reflective of the findings provided by the IO to be found as legally sufficient to hold the applicant liable for the loss of government property. Further stated is that the IO correctly found the applicant to be negligent and that her actions were the proximate cause of the loss of the property to which she was directly responsible. e. A DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 2 May 2016 provided by the applicant is illegible, however upon review appears to address and account for the information contained in her opening statement being presented before the board. f. A DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 15 June 2016 provided by the applicant is the subsequent statement provided to the IO because the initial document was illegible. The applicant contests that on 2 May 2016 she discovered the tough box containing her laptop, power cord, printer and cartridges was missing. The lock was still secured, but the locking mechanism was busted. The internal locking mechanism was also broken. She signed for and last inventoried this equipment on 5 April 2016. It was later brought to her attention that and had been tampering with, relocating and authorizing other personnel to access this equipment, without her authorization as the current Hand Receipt holder. admitted to authorizing the move of the equipment however he denied knowledge of who was actually signed for the equipment as he believed that the responsible personnel were already forward deployed. It is her belief that someone from another command notice the tough box in the motor pool during the inventory and gained unlawful access to the box and subsequently removed the items. g. A DD Form 1750 (Packing List) dated 16 February 2016 reflective a total of 21 line items being inventoried. Contained within this document is reference to a total of what appears to be 3 boxes containing the laptop and additional equipment. A total of 2 serial numbers are listed and signed for by the applicant h. A DA Form 2062 (Hand Receipt) dated 16 February 2016 reflective of 2 laptops, 1 telephone set and a 2 power cords signed for by the applicant. i. A Unit Hand Receipt dated 27 January 2016 reflective of 2 computers, a telephone set and additional items being signed for by the applicant. j. A DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 21 June 2016 from reflective of his account of events related to the government property loss. He denies knowledge of when the items were taken and or who had taken them. He contests that the loss occurred between March and May of 2016 when another command was conducting communications validation in April. He further states that he advised participants during the validation to not utilize or move any of the equipment that they did not bring with them. k. A DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 11 May 2016 from First Sergeant reflective of his account of events related to the government property loss. He states that the applicant ask for his assistance with locating the tough box on or about 23-26 February 2016. As the containers arrived in Kuwait, he was unable to locate a one containing the tough box. On 16 March 2016 while conducting a vehicle inspection he noted a tough box and annotated its location. He informed the applicant to which she replied that the box contained basic issue items for the vehicle. l. A DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 28 May 2016 from reflective of his account of events related to the government property loss. He states that prior to his arrival in Kuwait, the applicant inquired about the whereabouts of the tough box. He noted that during the 16 March 2016 inventory, identified the tough box belonging to the applicant, on the back of a vehicle left unsecured. He informed the applicant to pick up the box, however she stated that the box identified belonged to the vehicle and was therefore not the one that she was looking for. To his knowledge, she never actually verified in person that this was not the correct box, however when conducting an inventory she later noted that this was in fact the box that she was looking for. At that time she stated that the box appeared to be broken into and the printer was missing. The computer was not mentioned at that time. When closing out the inventory, the applicant stated that the laptop was in her possession, however the hard drive was fried. She then stated that she would bring it in the following day. After multiple inquiries into the whereabouts of the laptop, the applicant later stated that the laptop was stolen along with the printer from the tough box. At that time, a statement of charges was issued to the applicant for the loss of the laptop. m. A MFR – Law Enforcement Report dated 6 May 2016 reflective of the 2 May 2016 Larceny of Government Property as reported by the applicant. n. Photos of the tough box and its interior. o. A MFR – Appeal of Investigation of Property Loss dated 28 July 2016 reflective of the applicants contention with the findings of the FLIPL. She states that they are not legally sufficient based upon: i. the biasness of the investigation ii. the lack of a thorough investigation iii. false provided statements iv. omission of documents in the police report v. proximate loss was due to larceny, not negligence vi. Legal Officer failed to ensure IO and appointing authority followed the notification process vii. Failure to apply correct depreciation value of unserviceable equipment viii. Failure to be advised of her rights by the IO ix. IO identified the added complexity based on the current environment x. She was not interviewed by the IO xi. The IO failed to make any attempt to validate the laptops condition or serviceability p. Email communication dated 19 July 2016 reflective of the applicant being determined as liable for cost of the lost laptop as determined by the Battalion Commander BC). She was given 15 days to provide concurrence, objection and rebuttal. She was asked to sign the DD Form 200 whether she concurred or not and if she intended to object, to provide her rebuttal in MFR format within the 15 days. She contest that the FLIPL was closed and signed by the BC on 17 July 2016. q. Email communication dated 27 July 2016 reflective of a stating that he received 1 tough box from the applicant around April. r. Email communication dated 27 July 2016 reflective of a and responses to questions concerning their knowledge of the two laptops being inquired about. Within their statements they provide that one of the laptops could not be repaired due to issues with the hard drive. s. DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) dated 16 August 2016 from reflective of his additional account of events related to the government property loss. In addition to his initial statement he contested that the applicant took no direct action to recover or identify the location of her tough box. She failed to bring this to the attention of both he and the Executive Officer. He further stated that she did not ask nor attempt to secure the tough box. This inaction resulted in the laptop being left unsecured and not properly accounted for. t. A MFR - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 21 August 2016 reflective of review of the MFR provided by the applicant as both a rebuttal and request for reconsideration. He states that the matters submitted by the applicant did not materially alter the facts and circumstances. He therefore determined that the findings and recommendations of the IO remain the same. u. A MFR - Supplementary Legal Review of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 21 August 2016. The applicant contests that is the same lawyer that conducted the initial legal review and further provided her statement to its legal sufficiency one day after the findings and recommendations were written. She further states that although the document advises to notify her, he never did. v. A MFR – Appeal Decision - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 31 August 2016 reflective of the appellate authority (BG) reviewing the content of the applicants appeal. He agreed that there were procedural errors in the conduct of the FLIPL, however the errors had no substantial effect on the evidence gathered or the ultimate conclusion of the IO. He therefore denied her appeal and elected to uphold the approving authority’s decision to hold her financially liable for the lost property. w. A MFR – Appeal Decision - Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 and Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss, Lost Computer System dated 25 August 2016 reflective of the recommendation to deny the applicant request for relief of financial liability. Further stated is that the IO, on 20 July 2016 notified the applicant of his recommendation of financial liability and her right to submit matters in rebuttal to his findings. On 28 July 2016 the applicant submitted her request for reconsideration. LTC reviewed her request and determined to maintain his decision to approve the IO’s recommendation of financial liability. x. A Defense Finance and Accounting Service Leave and Earnings Statement dated 30 September 2016 reflective of the $828.44 debt associated with the applicant being held financially liable for the property loss. y. A MFR – DD Form 200 Exhibit – Statement of Lateness/Delay dated 2 June 2016 reflective of the FLIPL submitted for. Contained within this document is the justification as to why the completed package was not provided to the Battalion Logistics section within 10 days after there was a determination of loss. Due to the pre- Change of Command inventories the FLIPL in this case was not initiated until 26 May 2016. 5. On 22 November 2019 the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 provided an Advisory Opinion recommending that the financial liability assessment be reversed to include the reimbursement of the $824.44 debt. It further states that after a thorough review, they concluded that the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss was not conducted in accordance with (IAW) Army Regulation (AR) 735-5 and the recommendation to hold the applicant liable was not sufficient. The recommendation is based on 1) the unit failed to properly document the loss of equipment on the DD Form 200, 2) the applicant was notified she was being recommended for and being held financially liable after the investigation was closed 3) the approving authority did not notify the applicant that he was holding her financially liable or provide her the opportunity to ask for reconsideration prior to closing out the financial liability of property loss, and 4) appeal authority denied appeal even though stating there were procedural problems with the investigation. 6. On 5 February 2020 the ARBA Case Management Division provided the applicant with a copy of the advisory opinion. The applicant was given 14 days to submit comments. As of 20 February 2020 the applicant had not responded. 7. See all applicable regulatory guidance below under REFERENCES. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, the supporting documents, the records, applicable regulations, and the facts above, the Board found that relief is warranted as recommended in the Board Determination and Recommendation below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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 that debt of $828.44 accessed on 7 June 2016 associated with the Financial Liability Investigation Property Loss (FLIPL) be voided and any funds collected refunded to the applicant. 12/2/2020 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. REFERENCES: 1. AR 735-5 (Property Accountability Policies) 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). //NOTHING FOLLOWS//