Hand Receipt Maintenance
As a PBO, it is important that you maintain accurate hand receipts. Having items on hand receipts whose nomenclature are “NOT ON CATALOG” or having MTOE items listed as CTA items are not helpful to you or the commander that is supposed to inventory and sub-hand receipt that equipment to the user.
You must make time to do hand receipt maintenance. Your first couple of times, until you get a system in place, may take awhile. But after a few tries, you can easily move through your hand receipts and CPL’s to review and mark changes in an efficient manner and it will not take as long.
I recommend that you do CPL reviews at least monthly and actual hand receipt reviews quarterly. You can set up a system where you aren’t trying to do all your hand receipts in the same month and you spread them out over a three month period of time.
At a minimum, I recommend that you do the following:
Print or save the CPL on the computer. If you feel more comfortable doing this in Excel rather than using a hard copy, please do so. You are saving our trees and we appreciate it. But for some, a hard copy will be the only way for them to truly see where there are problems.
The next thing I do is to look at all of my authorizations. On the CPL, I am initially looking at only the LIN Total and not the individual hand receipt quantities. Do the CTA items (TAC 3) have an authorized quantity that matches the quantity on-hand and on-order? If not, mark that it needs changed. If they have 31 on-hand and 2 on-order, then the Authorization should be 33; but if they have none on-order then the authorization should be 31. If they no longer have any on-hand and on-order, remove the CTA authorization. Once I see that I must adjust the total number, I then look to see where I must make these changes – to what hand receipt do I need to make the changes to?
If an item has no required or authorized quantity and there is an on-hand number, do you have the correct TAC? For instance, if you were issued an item from a fielding team and that item is not on your MTOE, then you probably need to mark it as a TAC 9, with an authorized quantity matching the quantity that you were issued. I find many PBO’s who leave the authorization totally blank for TAC 9 items. If a TM, AR, letter, or other special regulation authorizes that item, then why would there be no quantity in the Authorized column? PBO’s need to put the quantity that is authorized by the TM, AR, or letter in the Authorized column, not put zero. Doesn’t that make sense?
I always kept a file of notes to keep track of all TAC 9 items. I suggest you do the same. Keep it in LIN order. You don’t have to spend a lot of time in typing up formal memo’s. Something simple with dates and explanations, possibly even issue documents to state why you placed this item on the books as a TAC 9. I would write in big letters the LIN at the top.
Note the MTOE/TDA items that are short and place these items on order. Remember to get a funded requisition for the stock funded items. If you get a cancellation back stating that the item is a TPF item, make a note of it. You don’t want to waste your time continually re-ordering that item just to get all of the requisitions cancelled. I suggest that you keep a list of these items on an Excel spreadsheet and keep track of when you are expected to be fielded these items.
In the next example of something that needs further review, the MTOE authorizes 9 PSG-11’s and the unit only has 5 on-hand. Yet, the PBO has placed 1 of them in Delta Company as authorized by a letter (TAC 9) and another in the HQ’s company as excess (TAC 8). Is this right? Should any be listed as excess if the unit overall is short? Yes, the HQ’s company is excess as they have a quantity that is authorized in another company. But the authorization in Delta company should not be a TAC 9, instead it should be listed as excess (TAC 8) as well. So, the PBO needs to fix the authorization in Delta company. One thing I have found here with many PBO’s is that they have listed these unauthorized quantities as TAC 3, CTA authorizations. If the unit is authorized them in other companies as MTOE or TDA, how could another company possibly be authorized the item as a CTA item? MTOE and TDA items can be found in SB 700-20 Chapters 2, 4, and 6. CTA items are authorized in chapter 8. An item cannot be in both paragraphs in the SB 700-20. So, for all you PBO’s out there that have M1’s, Strykers, and other MTOE and TDA items listed as TAC 3 items, get out there and fix your books. Let me reiterate – if an item is in SB 700-20, other than Chapter 8, it should not be listed as TAC 3 on your property book. Only Chapter 8 items should be listed as TAC 3 items. There are a lot of you out there that have TACs to fix.
My next example shows a unit with all of their CYZ-10’s listed as excess (TAC 8). How can that be. CYZ-10’s are necessary to operate the SINCGARS. Upon further research I find that the unit is authorized the new item – the PYQ-10, under the LIN Z00384. That means the PBO needs to move these items to that authorization, not leave them hanging out there all by themselves appearing that they are excess. If the new item had not been a “Z” LIN, the PBO would have been forced to do this during USR because the unit would have been S-4 for that LIN. But because the new item is a “Z” LIN and they don’t get reported for USR until they are S-3 or above, the PBO gets away with this total lack of updating. How is a PBO supposed to know that the PYQ-10 replaced the CYZ-10 one-for-one. Easy, go look at the MTOE on the USAFMSA WebTAADS site, and click on the BOIP button. It will list for you all the BOIPs that have been applied to that MTOE.
Here is another common occurrence, that shouldn’t be – NOT ON CATALOG
In this instance, there is no quantity on-hand and no MTOE/TDA authorization. So, why should there be a TAC 3 authorization? Without a quantity on-hand, and none due-in, this is a worthless entry on the property book. Delete the whole thing and get it off which will clean up your books and not give your hand receipt holders the impression that you don’t know what you are doing as a PBO.
Look at this next example.
The PBO has authorized a LIN that doesn’t exist in their user-created catalog or SLAMIS and then placed an item that is on the catalog under that authorization for a different unit. It appears that the LIN is correct for the NSN listed in SLAMIS but the PBO probably hasn’t aligned that LIN for the company that has the authorization. So, the authorization for the one company needs to be removed and the new LIN authorized for the company that has the equipment. I can’t believe that no one has noticed this aberration before.
Here’s another one from the same PBO: 
This time there is a TAC F authorization for a “Z” LIN that is no longer in SB 700-20. Is this authorization still in their MTOE? No. So this is another one of those authorization that is invalid and has no on-hand or on-order. The whole thing just needs to be deleted. How a PBO can tolerate a property book that has NOT ON CATALOG repeated numerous times on their CPL or hand receipts I just don’t understand.
What do you do if you have a “Z” LIN authorized on your MTOE and it is removed from the SB 700-20? What do you do then? If you have no assets, you do nothing. If you have assets, you must get a new NSLIN from SLAMIS and then sub that NSLIN for the LIN you are still authorized on your MTOE – even though that LIN is no longer on SB 700-20. With the current automation efforts between SB 700-20 and MTOE’s, you should not see this very often, but it could still happen. If the “Z” LIN has been changed to a standard LIN and your MTOE still shows the “Z” LIN, you need align your assets to the new LIN and then sub them for the “Z” LIN still authorized by your MTOE. Once the MTOE is updated, you will have to un-sub these items to the new LIN.
To update the hand receipts, the main task, if you have done all the authorizations and catalog issues with the CPL, will be with serial and registration numbers.
In our first example, the PBO has listed improperly the cell and deterctor serial numbers of the M22 alarm. It is obvious because the majority of them are done properly. So, why doesn’t the PBO fix the ones that are obviously wrong? I have no idea. In this case the PBO has everything they need to fix the data; they just choose not to do so. Laziness.
The next example was the most common one for me.
The on-hand balance does not agree with the number of serial numbers listed. In this case there are two on the hand receipt with only one serial number. Many PBO’s I know of will just wait for a commander to bring them the data to fix this. Well, you will be waiting a long time because they have other things to do than fix your property book. In this case the item is a TYQ-93, something that is used by the G-2/S-2. First see if the supply sergeant has two serial numbers on the sub-hand receipt. If not, call the G-2/S-2 and find out what serial numbers they have for the two items they have; type up the DA Form 4949, and have the supply sergeant or commander sign it. Trust me, you will be a big help and they will appreciate the assist. Don’t know what the item is or who might have it, look on the MTOE, Google it, do something!
I just love the next example. It’s the PBUSE computer. There is one on-hand and there is no serial number recorded. If you don’t know who to go to to get that serial number then you have a problem.
You will also encounter issues with invalid serial and registration numbers. But you may not know that they are invalid. I recommend to every PBO that they run the Ground Equipment Verifier within LIW. This tool allows you to align your hand receipts to the TEDB records. Most of these TEDB records were established when the vehicle was assigned its USA registration number. So, you can compare what you have on the property book with what was on the original TEDB document and make changes when appropriate. You can find the Ground Equipment Verifier in LIW under PBUSE Management Tools.
You are all capable of doing these hand receipt maintenance procedures. Your commanders deserve a great hand receipt so that they can sub-hand receipt the equipment properly. That is really important.
Friday, February 29, 2008
PODCast #3, Hand Receipt Maintenance
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
PODCast #2, How to Perform a Financial Liability Investigation
How to Perform a Financial Liability Investigation
So, you’ve been assigned as a Financial Liability Investigating Officer. At least that is what I am assuming since you are listening to this PODCast.
What are you supposed to do for this investigation?
Where do you plan on beginning?
How long do I have?
Let me see if I can help.
First off, I recommend that you get your hands on a copy of Department of the Army Pamphlet 735-5, Financial Liability Officer’s Guide. You can find this regulation on the Army Publishing Directorate’s website or if you go to the site where you got this PODCast, the web address is contained in the text. http://www.apd.army.mil/series_range_pubs.asp?range=735
Before going any further with this PODCast I recommend that you read Chapter 2 of that pamphlet. Chapter 2 discusses the DD Form 200 and lists some key terms and their definitions. I need you to understand terms such as proximate cause, culpability, and willful misconduct and to understand the different types of responsibility before we continue.
You only have a total of 30 days to totally complete your investigation, counsel those that you are recommending financial liability, and giving your findings to the Appointing/Approving Authority. Not counting weekends, that isn’t much time. So, you must remain focused to the task at hand.
I realize that DD Form 200 is titled Financial Liability Investigation for Property Loss and it seems like it shouldn’t be used for anything but lost equipment, but that is not the case. The form is also used to record damage.
So, if you are investigating damage, the next thing you need to do is release the damaged item for repair. But, you don’t want them to repair any evidence that you may need so you need to take a digital camera with you and take as many pictures as you feel are necessary to document the damage. You may even have to get an expert opinion on the damage as it may not be something that you can photograph. Then release the item to get repaired.
Now, you need to figure out what you are going to do next. Chapter 3 of DA Pam 735-5 gives some good procedural guidance of the conduct of an investigation like what form to use to take statements and that your purpose is to determine responsibility for the loss (or damage). So, you may find Chapter 3 useful as well.
But what Chapter 3 doesn’t give you is years of experience. That is what I plan on doing here for you now. Granted, I cannot possibly cover every possible experience nor will I be able to describe your investigation fully in order for you to to follow a strict step-by-step process to complete your investigation. You will still need to totally understand your situation and think through it just as I am hopefully going to show you how.
The main thing you need to do is to determine the proximate cause of the loss or damage. What was the one initial act that caused the loss or damage to occur. Once you determine proximate cause, then it is quite easy to determine who is culpable as they would be the one or ones that caused the one thing to happen. Too often I have seen investigating officers come back with a finding of who they think should be “blamed” yet that individual had nothing to do with the proximate cause.
You must totally understand this concept before you move on. So, I am going to give you some examples.
Proximate Cause Example #1. Soldier is eating in Dining Facility and when returning her tray, someone stole her gortex jacket that she left on back of her chair. What is the proximate cause of loss? The proximate cause of loss could be that the gortex was stolen But that was not the one initial act that caused the loss. That one act is the failure of the Soldier to safeguard her gear and perform her personal responsibility duties which ultimately caused the loss of her gortex jacket.
Proximate Cause Example #2. A new soldier arrives. The 1SG tells the Soldier to place his bags in his office while he continues in-processing. When the Soldier returns later that day to the 1SG’s office, his duffle bag has been opened and he is missing some of his TA-50. What is the proximate cause of the loss? Remember what happened in the situation above? Who failed to perform their responsibility duties here? Was it the Soldier? No, it was the 1SG. He failed to perform his Supervisory responsibility duties. So, the proximate cause of this loss is the failure to properly provide safekeeping for equipment issued to his subordinates.
Are you getting the hang of this proximate cause thing?
Lets do a damage situation.
Proximate Cause Example #3. Vehicle is being Ground Guided by an NCO and vehicle backs into Brigade Commander’s parked vehicle causing $1,200 worth of damage. Driver was not licensed for vehicle he was operating. So, is the driver responsible for the damage? This is one of those situations where investigating officers always want to blame the driver. But, the driver was doing what the NCO told him to do while the NCO was ground guiding him. It is assumed in my example that the NCO knew the Soldier was not licensed to operate the vehicle and told him to do it anyway. So, here we have an NCO, allowing a Soldier to drive a vehicle in which he is not licensed and the NCO is telling him where to move the vehicle by ground guiding him. So, the proximate cause of the damage is failure of the NCO to properly ground guide a vehicle. Because the NCO allowed the Soldier to drive while unlicensed, the company commander could also direct an Article 15 or other administrative action such as a letter of reprimand.
Now they get a little harder.
Proximate Cause Example #4. The CIF tells the company commander that PFC Riley failed to clear CIF when he PCS’d on 4 April 2007 and now a Financial Liability Investigation must be completed. Soldier’s clearance papers show that he cleared CIF of all items. What is the proximate cause of loss? Did you get this one? Since there is no true loss, there is no proximate cause of loss. The CIF needs to update their paperwork and the Financial Liability Investigation needs to be canceled.
Okay, that one was a trick question. Try this one.
Proximate Cause Example #5. Soldier has stored their TA-50 (or it could be any Government equipment) at their house. Someone breaks into the house. The police report shows that there was a forced entry into the house and an unknown thief escaped. What is the proximate cause? This time there was forced entry so the proximate cause is not that the individual did not secure their gear. This time the proximate cause is the forced entry and then the theft. So, unless you can link an individual to the theft, you cannot hold anyone liable.
Proximate Cause Example #6. Same as above except this time the Soldier secured his gear in the front of his car. The car was broken into and the gear stolen. What is the proximate cause of this one? Remember that proximate cause is the one initial act that caused the loss. In this case it was the fact that the gear was inside the car and visible to the thief. So, the Soldier failed to properly secure their gear. What if the equipment was in the trunk? If the one initial act is not the failure to properly secure, the theft might be the one act. However, most units will have a policy that states that Government equipment will not be stored in a car. Failure to follow that policy could be the proximate cause of loss.
Proximate Cause Example #7. A Soldier’s house burns down. You are investigating the destruction of all of her OCIE. What is the proximate cause. The proximate cause of the destruction is the house burning down. Unless you know what caused the fire, you cannot be anymore specific. And unless you can prove that the individual caused the fire, then you cannot charge her for the destruction of the equipment. If you have the Fire Marshall’s statement that states that the cause of the blaze was due to an improperly used candle or something, you can link the individual to the proximate cause.
Okay, here is our last example.
Proximate Cause Example #8. A HMMWV, while avoiding another vehicle, exited the highway and rolled. The driver, a Specialist, was severely injured as he was not wearing his seatbelt. The passenger, a Sergeant, was wearing his seatbelt and had only minor injuries. The vehicle is totaled. The MP’s determined that the driver was driving at an excessive speed and over-reacted to the situation ahead. What is the proximate cause? The MP’s have already done the investigation for you. The proximate cause of the accident is excessive speed and over-reaction by the driver. Now, who is the individual that can be linked to the proximate cause. In this example, you must remove your emotion. Who is really to blame, the Specialist driver or the TC Sergeant? If we were civilians, perhaps the situation would be different. But, in this case, the TC is the cause of the accident as he permitted the driver to drive over the speed limit. Not only that, he can be held liable for the injuries the Specialist incurred since he can also be linked to the fact that the driver was not wearing his seatbelt. Some investigating officers find this result so unsettling that they will change their findings as they feel that the Sergeant should not be charged.
Remember, you are to find the proximate cause and then link an individual to that cause if you can. It is not up to you to determine whether that finding is fair or if that individual has the means to pay for the damage or loss. That is not in your charter. Don’t let emotions get in the way of you performing your task – finding the proximate cause.
Okay, enough about proximate cause, let’s move on to how you go about finding the proximate cause. In order to do that, you must have all the facts. I suggest that you immediately discuss the situation with the company commander as they had to do the initial investigation in order to complete block 9 of the DD Form 200. Too often, for some reason, company commanders, don’t like to put what the proximate cause of the loss or damage is. Perhaps that is because they try to be popular or don’t want to immediately place blame without an outsider looking at the case. So, perhaps, you can find out everything you need from the company commander. They may already have copies of all the paperwork to substantiate those findings and possibly even sworn statements that they did not attach to the initial DD Form 200. Then all you have to do is package it all together.
If you feel you still don’t have all the facts, I suggest that you write out the questions that you need answered in order to figure out the facts. This would be your “Road Map” to the investigation. Without a road map you may end up talking to individuals that have really nothing to do with the facts of the case. You may end up down a rat hole that sucks up days of what little time you have to complete the investigation. Without the road map you won’t know what paperwork you need to substantiate your findings. You may need to adjust your road map during the investigation to keep focused on the objective – finding the proximate cause. Answer the simple questions of Who, What, Where, When, and How. Why may not be a question that needs to be answered. The only question with Why would be to determine if it was done through willful misconduct or simple or gross negligence.
You got your road map. Now figure out who you need to talk to to answer your questions. Again, you may end up adjusting these names as you continue through your interviews. If the person you are talking to cannot provide you the answers to the questions that you have, you don’t have to continue to talk to them or to take their statement. If what they are telling you will not lead you to the goal of determining the proximate cause and who may be behind the proximate cause, then stop and move on to the next person on your road map.
When you take someone’s statement, don’t just let them ramble on. Ask them specific questions and then let them respond. Have them remain focused as well on their Sworn Statements or you could have pages and pages of junk that is worthless and will not add anything to your investigation. When I have performed investigations, I have literally written a question unto the sworn statement, listened to their response, agree upon their answer and put that on the sworn statement. You may want them to write out unto a blank page of paper of what they would like to write unto their sworn statement as practice.
Now it is time to put complete your findings When putting your packet together only put those statements that support your findings even if you have many more statements and material. Practice in Microsoft Word or on blank pieces of paper what you want to put as your final finding. Chapter 4 of DA Pam 735-5 has some great step-by-steps and some examples of what you need to do to put your final findings together. Chapter 5 discusses in detail how to compute actual loss or damage costs. I don’t plan on discussing them any further in this PODCast.
DO NOT YET TYPE YOUR FINDINGS UNTO THE DD FORM 200.
I highly suggest that you take your findings and recommendations and discuss them with your Appointing Authority, Brigade S4, Property Book Officer, or even your Approving Authority before committing your findings unto the actually DD Form 200. You may have overlooked something that they can guide you in the right direction or you may have totally missed the mark and need to start over. I have always advocated that Brigade and Battalion XO’s become intimately involved in the investigation process with the investigating officer to aid in the investigations and to ensure that the findings are timely and accurate. If they don’t offer up the help, go see them and ask for assistance. Time spent with them will be time well spent at the end when it ends up on the COL’s desk for final approval.
Once your findings and recommendations are given the okay, type them up on the DD Form 200. Your next step is to notify any individuals that you are recommending financial liability against to give them a chance to rebut your findings and recommendations. Don’t forget this step. It is not your job to convince them that your recommendation is correct. Your task is to only contact them and let them know you are recommending them for financial liability and then provide them with all of your evidence you intend to attach to the investigation. They need to see what you see so that they can provide you with any rebuttals.
When they provide their rebuttals, read them and figure out if you need to investigate further. If they provide no new evidence then you do not have to investigate further. Your last task is to prepare the whole packet for the appointing/approval authority’s acceptance. Again, I refer you to DA Pam 735-5.
I hope my guidance here has been useful. You are the one now that has to go out there and complete the investigation. Remember that there are many people that can help you if you have questions. Questions that involve responsibility or DD Form 200 processes should be directed to either your S4 or the property book officer.
There is also another resource and that is LOGNet. LOGNet is always there for you to ask any question and get a quick response. LOGNet can be accessed at https://lognet.bcks.army.mil/.
Good luck in your investigation. Remember, stay focused!
How to Perform a Financial Liability Investigation
How to Perform a Financial Liability Investigation
So, you’ve been assigned as a Financial Liability Investigating Officer. At least that is what I am assuming since you are listening to this PODCast.
What are you supposed to do for this investigation?
Where do you plan on beginning?
How long do I have?
Let me see if I can help.
First off, I recommend that you get your hands on a copy of Department of the Army Pamphlet 735-5, Financial Liability Officer’s Guide. You can find this regulation on the Army Publishing Directorate’s website or if you go to the site where you got this PODCast, the web address is contained in the text. http://www.apd.army.mil/series_range_pubs.asp?range=735
Before going any further with this PODCast I recommend that you read Chapter 2 of that pamphlet. Chapter 2 discusses the DD Form 200 and lists some key terms and their definitions. I need you to understand terms such as proximate cause, culpability, and willful misconduct and to understand the different types of responsibility before we continue.
You only have a total of 30 days to totally complete your investigation, counsel those that you are recommending financial liability, and giving your findings to the Appointing/Approving Authority. Not counting weekends, that isn’t much time. So, you must remain focused to the task at hand.
I realize that DD Form 200 is titled Financial Liability Investigation for Property Loss and it seems like it shouldn’t be used for anything but lost equipment, but that is not the case. The form is also used to record damage.
So, if you are investigating damage, the next thing you need to do is release the damaged item for repair. But, you don’t want them to repair any evidence that you may need so you need to take a digital camera with you and take as many pictures as you feel are necessary to document the damage. You may even have to get an expert opinion on the damage as it may not be something that you can photograph. Then release the item to get repaired.
Now, you need to figure out what you are going to do next. Chapter 3 of DA Pam 735-5 gives some good procedural guidance of the conduct of an investigation like what form to use to take statements and that your purpose is to determine responsibility for the loss (or damage). So, you may find Chapter 3 useful as well.
But what Chapter 3 doesn’t give you is years of experience. That is what I plan on doing here for you now. Granted, I cannot possibly cover every possible experience nor will I be able to describe your investigation fully in order for you to to follow a strict step-by-step process to complete your investigation. You will still need to totally understand your situation and think through it just as I am hopefully going to show you how.
The main thing you need to do is to determine the proximate cause of the loss or damage. What was the one initial act that caused the loss or damage to occur. Once you determine proximate cause, then it is quite easy to determine who is culpable as they would be the one or ones that caused the one thing to happen. Too often I have seen investigating officers come back with a finding of who they think should be “blamed” yet that individual had nothing to do with the proximate cause.
You must totally understand this concept before you move on. So, I am going to give you some examples.
Proximate Cause Example #1. Soldier is eating in Dining Facility and when returning her tray, someone stole her gortex jacket that she left on back of her chair. What is the proximate cause of loss? The proximate cause of loss could be that the gortex was stolen But that was not the one initial act that caused the loss. That one act is the failure of the Soldier to safeguard her gear and perform her personal responsibility duties which ultimately caused the loss of her gortex jacket.
Proximate Cause Example #2. A new soldier arrives. The 1SG tells the Soldier to place his bags in his office while he continues in-processing. When the Soldier returns later that day to the 1SG’s office, his duffle bag has been opened and he is missing some of his TA-50. What is the proximate cause of the loss? Remember what happened in the situation above? Who failed to perform their responsibility duties here? Was it the Soldier? No, it was the 1SG. He failed to perform his Supervisory responsibility duties. So, the proximate cause of this loss is the failure to properly provide safekeeping for equipment issued to his subordinates.
Are you getting the hang of this proximate cause thing?
Lets do a damage situation.
Proximate Cause Example #3. Vehicle is being Ground Guided by an NCO and vehicle backs into Brigade Commander’s parked vehicle causing $1,200 worth of damage. Driver was not licensed for vehicle he was operating. So, is the driver responsible for the damage? This is one of those situations where investigating officers always want to blame the driver. But, the driver was doing what the NCO told him to do while the NCO was ground guiding him. It is assumed in my example that the NCO knew the Soldier was not licensed to operate the vehicle and told him to do it anyway. So, here we have an NCO, allowing a Soldier to drive a vehicle in which he is not licensed and the NCO is telling him where to move the vehicle by ground guiding him. So, the proximate cause of the damage is failure of the NCO to properly ground guide a vehicle. Because the NCO allowed the Soldier to drive while unlicensed, the company commander could also direct an Article 15 or other administrative action such as a letter of reprimand.
Now they get a little harder.
Proximate Cause Example #4. The CIF tells the company commander that PFC Riley failed to clear CIF when he PCS’d on 4 April 2007 and now a Financial Liability Investigation must be completed. Soldier’s clearance papers show that he cleared CIF of all items. What is the proximate cause of loss? Did you get this one? Since there is no true loss, there is no proximate cause of loss. The CIF needs to update their paperwork and the Financial Liability Investigation needs to be canceled.
Okay, that one was a trick question. Try this one.
Proximate Cause Example #5. Soldier has stored their TA-50 (or it could be any Government equipment) at their house. Someone breaks into the house. The police report shows that there was a forced entry into the house and an unknown thief escaped. What is the proximate cause? This time there was forced entry so the proximate cause is not that the individual did not secure their gear. This time the proximate cause is the forced entry and then the theft. So, unless you can link an individual to the theft, you cannot hold anyone liable.
Proximate Cause Example #6. Same as above except this time the Soldier secured his gear in the front of his car. The car was broken into and the gear stolen. What is the proximate cause of this one? Remember that proximate cause is the one initial act that caused the loss. In this case it was the fact that the gear was inside the car and visible to the thief. So, the Soldier failed to properly secure their gear. What if the equipment was in the trunk? If the one initial act is not the failure to properly secure, the theft might be the one act. However, most units will have a policy that states that Government equipment will not be stored in a car. Failure to follow that policy could be the proximate cause of loss.
Proximate Cause Example #7. A Soldier’s house burns down. You are investigating the destruction of all of her OCIE. What is the proximate cause. The proximate cause of the destruction is the house burning down. Unless you know what caused the fire, you cannot be anymore specific. And unless you can prove that the individual caused the fire, then you cannot charge her for the destruction of the equipment. If you have the Fire Marshall’s statement that states that the cause of the blaze was due to an improperly used candle or something, you can link the individual to the proximate cause.
Okay, here is our last example.
Proximate Cause Example #8. A HMMWV, while avoiding another vehicle, exited the highway and rolled. The driver, a Specialist, was severely injured as he was not wearing his seatbelt. The passenger, a Sergeant, was wearing his seatbelt and had only minor injuries. The vehicle is totaled. The MP’s determined that the driver was driving at an excessive speed and over-reacted to the situation ahead. What is the proximate cause? The MP’s have already done the investigation for you. The proximate cause of the accident is excessive speed and over-reaction by the driver. Now, who is the individual that can be linked to the proximate cause. In this example, you must remove your emotion. Who is really to blame, the Specialist driver or the TC Sergeant? If we were civilians, perhaps the situation would be different. But, in this case, the TC is the cause of the accident as he permitted the driver to drive over the speed limit. Not only that, he can be held liable for the injuries the Specialist incurred since he can also be linked to the fact that the driver was not wearing his seatbelt. Some investigating officers find this result so unsettling that they will change their findings as they feel that the Sergeant should not be charged.
Remember, you are to find the proximate cause and then link an individual to that cause if you can. It is not up to you to determine whether that finding is fair or if that individual has the means to pay for the damage or loss. That is not in your charter. Don’t let emotions get in the way of you performing your task – finding the proximate cause.
Okay, enough about proximate cause, let’s move on to how you go about finding the proximate cause. In order to do that, you must have all the facts. I suggest that you immediately discuss the situation with the company commander as they had to do the initial investigation in order to complete block 9 of the DD Form 200. Too often, for some reason, company commanders, don’t like to put what the proximate cause of the loss or damage is. Perhaps that is because they try to be popular or don’t want to immediately place blame without an outsider looking at the case. So, perhaps, you can find out everything you need from the company commander. They may already have copies of all the paperwork to substantiate those findings and possibly even sworn statements that they did not attach to the initial DD Form 200. Then all you have to do is package it all together.
If you feel you still don’t have all the facts, I suggest that you write out the questions that you need answered in order to figure out the facts. This would be your “Road Map” to the investigation. Without a road map you may end up talking to individuals that have really nothing to do with the facts of the case. You may end up down a rat hole that sucks up days of what little time you have to complete the investigation. Without the road map you won’t know what paperwork you need to substantiate your findings. You may need to adjust your road map during the investigation to keep focused on the objective – finding the proximate cause. Answer the simple questions of Who, What, Where, When, and How. Why may not be a question that needs to be answered. The only question with Why would be to determine if it was done through willful misconduct or simple or gross negligence.
You got your road map. Now figure out who you need to talk to to answer your questions. Again, you may end up adjusting these names as you continue through your interviews. If the person you are talking to cannot provide you the answers to the questions that you have, you don’t have to continue to talk to them or to take their statement. If what they are telling you will not lead you to the goal of determining the proximate cause and who may be behind the proximate cause, then stop and move on to the next person on your road map.
When you take someone’s statement, don’t just let them ramble on. Ask them specific questions and then let them respond. Have them remain focused as well on their Sworn Statements or you could have pages and pages of junk that is worthless and will not add anything to your investigation. When I have performed investigations, I have literally written a question unto the sworn statement, listened to their response, agree upon their answer and put that on the sworn statement. You may want them to write out unto a blank page of paper of what they would like to write unto their sworn statement as practice.
Now it is time to put complete your findings When putting your packet together only put those statements that support your findings even if you have many more statements and material. Practice in Microsoft Word or on blank pieces of paper what you want to put as your final finding. Chapter 4 of DA Pam 735-5 has some great step-by-steps and some examples of what you need to do to put your final findings together. Chapter 5 discusses in detail how to compute actual loss or damage costs. I don’t plan on discussing them any further in this PODCast.
DO NOT YET TYPE YOUR FINDINGS UNTO THE DD FORM 200.
I highly suggest that you take your findings and recommendations and discuss them with your Appointing Authority, Brigade S4, Property Book Officer, or even your Approving Authority before committing your findings unto the actually DD Form 200. You may have overlooked something that they can guide you in the right direction or you may have totally missed the mark and need to start over. I have always advocated that Brigade and Battalion XO’s become intimately involved in the investigation process with the investigating officer to aid in the investigations and to ensure that the findings are timely and accurate. If they don’t offer up the help, go see them and ask for assistance. Time spent with them will be time well spent at the end when it ends up on the COL’s desk for final approval.
Once your findings and recommendations are given the okay, type them up on the DD Form 200. Your next step is to notify any individuals that you are recommending financial liability against to give them a chance to rebut your findings and recommendations. Don’t forget this step. It is not your job to convince them that your recommendation is correct. Your task is to only contact them and let them know you are recommending them for financial liability and then provide them with all of your evidence you intend to attach to the investigation. They need to see what you see so that they can provide you with any rebuttals.
When they provide their rebuttals, read them and figure out if you need to investigate further. If they provide no new evidence then you do not have to investigate further. Your last task is to prepare the whole packet for the appointing/approval authority’s acceptance. Again, I refer you to DA Pam 735-5.
I hope my guidance here has been useful. You are the one now that has to go out there and complete the investigation. Remember that there are many people that can help you if you have questions. Questions that involve responsibility or DD Form 200 processes should be directed to either your S4 or the property book officer.
There is also another resource and that is LOGNet. LOGNet is always there for you to ask any question and get a quick response. LOGNet can be accessed at https://lognet.bcks.army.mil/.
Good luck in your investigation. Remember, stay focused!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
PODCast #1, Reducing Financial Liability Investigation Processing Times
How to Reduce Financial Liability Investigations Processing Time
Reducing the Processing Time of Financial Liability Investigations
CW5 Leslie M. Carroll
Leaders at all levels can contribute to reducing the total processing time for Financial Liability Investigations of Property Loss - from the lieutenant assigned as the investigating officer to the S4 (logistics officer) maintaining the Financial Liability Investigation Register. Using the following guidelines, a unit also may increase efficiency.
Initiator. The processing time for a Financial Liability Investigation begins with an initiator discovering loss or damage to equipment. The time does not begin at the moment the item was lost or at the moment the DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation) is initiated. I must stress this: the processing time begins with the discovery of the loss or damage.
The date of discovery MUST be mentioned in Block 9 of the DD Form 200 in order to use the correct date to compute the processing time. Too often the initiator lists only the date of loss or damage, and this is assumed to be the date of discovery. I highly suggest that the date of discovery be in the first sentence of Block 9. Let’s look at a situation where the date of discovery plays an important part in the processing time of a Financial Liability Investigation.
Situation. CPT Stone, a company commander, received a requirement 8 Dec 2007 from the central issue facility (CIF) to complete a Financial Liability Investigation against one of his Soldiers with a permanent change of station (PCS) eight months before on 4 April 2007. Apparently, the Soldier did not clear his records properly at the CIF before leaving. The CIF still shows that this soldier has a Wet Weather Parka.
Incorrect Solution. CPT Stone directs the unit’s supply sergeant to type a DD Form 200 with the following information in Block 9 (Figure 1):
Figure 1. Poorly Completed Block 9 of DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation)
PFC Riley PCS’d on 4 April 2007 without properly clearing CIF and failed to turn in the item listed above. PFC Riley was told to ensure that he out-processed the CIF and was sent back twice to turn in different items. PFC Riley is now at Fort Campbell KY. No one here has any recollection of his loss of the parka or why he failed to turn it in. His platoon sergeant, SFC Glass (EXHIBIT A) was unaware of PFC Riley’s failure to clear CIF until this Financial Liability Investigation was initiated..
Exhibit A Attached
As seen in Figure 1, the only date in Block 9 is the date that the Soldier "PCS’d" - leaving the approving authority with nothing else to use as the date of discovery, thus making the investigation 8 months old on 8 December 2007. Also, the memorandum from CIF requesting the Financial Liability Investigation is not listed as an exhibit, thus leaving everyone except CPT Stone totally uninformed about why the initiator did not begin the investigation until December 8, eight months after the initiator’s soldier left for a new duty station. Using the information in Figure 1, if the start of processing was based on the date of December 8, this Financial Liability Investigation would already be late with 251 days of processing time.
Helpful Hint: The commander should always check the clearance records kept at the company to find out how this soldier could have "slipped" through the CIF’s out-processing step. Copies of the departing soldier’s hand receipt cleared by the CIF should be kept with the copy of his clearance papers. The company’s copy of the hand receipt will keep the CIF "honest" and prevent the Soldier from being incorrectly charged. A copy of the departing soldier’s cleared hand receipt from the CIF could be used as an exhibit attached to the Financial Liability Investigation, allowing the approving authority to make a simple decision to write off the loss with no further investigation required. The processing time for this Financial Liability Investigation for the Wet Weather Parka can then be reduced to 20 days or less, depending on how long the company commander took to initiate the DD Form 200. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2. Correctly Completed Block 9 of DD Form 200 (Financial Liability Investigation )
I was notifed on 8 December 2007 that PFC Riley had not cleared his CIF Hand Receipt (Exhibit A). I was informed by CIF that PFC Riley PCS’d without properly clearing CIF and failed to turn in the item listed above. However, upon further investigation, I have found that PFC Riley did clear CIF on 24 March 2007 (Exhibit B) and that CIF stamped his clearance papers (Exhibit C). According to SFC Glass, his platoon sergeant, PFC Riley had to return numerous times to clear CIF. He could not find his Wet Weather Parka so PFC Riley completed a Statement of Charges to cover the item with CIF (Exhibit D). CIF must not have filed his paperwork correctly to show his completion of turning in all of his CIF items.
Exhibits A-D Attached
Another Helpful Hint. The initiator’s goal should be to complete a Financial Liability Investigation as much as possible, so that the DD Form 200 does not have to go to an investigating officer for further investigation. Assigning an investigating officer adds considerable time to the completion of a Financial Liability Investigation because the individual must review the entire investigation from the beginning. The initiator already has investigated the discovery and understands the situation. The appointing authority should have all the information that he needs to make a decision of whether to hold someone liable or not. Therefore the initiator must include statement of proximate cause in their block 9 statement and whether an individual can be linked to that proximate cause and be pecuniary liable for the loss or damage. Too often company commanders put few valuable information that an approving authority can use and therefore an investigating officer must be assigned.
Approving/Appointing Authority Helpful Hint. Just because you receive a poorly written block 9 doesn’t mean that you have to accept it. You have the authority to send the DD Form 200 back to the initiator for editing. If an Inquiry/Investigation number or document number has already been assigned, ensure the initiator processes the investigation through those offices again once you approve of the block 9 circumstances so the same numbers can be assigned to the correctly edited copy.
Accountable Officer. Units should hand-carry all Financial Liability Investigations to the accountable officer and the accountable officer should be able to assign a document number while you wait. The days allotted to the accountable officer are part of the 15 days given to initiate the investigation. Allowing the investigation to stay with the accountable officer more than three days is unacceptable.
If the Financial Liability Investigation is for damaged equipment, there is no requirement for a document number and therefore no requirement for the accountable officer to sign the DD Form 200. So, leave block 17 blank, and do not waste time leaving the DD Form 200 with the accountable officer.
Appointing Authority. Appointing authorities should take an active role throughout the entire process. The appointing authority should ensure that Financial Liability Investigations are processed as soon as possible after being initiated. The initiator should avoid placing the document in an inbox and should hand-carry the Financial Liability Investigation to the appointing authority. Then the initiator can answer any questions on the spot and make and attach any additional statements as necessary. Appointing authorities should make it a requirement that the initiator hand-carry their Financial Liability Investigations to them prior to processing through the S-4 and accountable officers. Never allow S-4’s to place Financial Liability Investigations in the appointing authorities inbox either. They should be hand carried as well for the same reason.
Appointing authorities must aid the investigating officer in the performance of his duties to complete the investigation and also help keep the processing time in check. Weekly counseling sessions with the investigating officer will guide him in completing the Financial Liability Investigation during the time allotted.
Investigating Officer. The investigating officer has 30 days to investigate and make findings and it will be difficult to complete within that time frame. Investigating officers must understand that the 30 days include not only the investigation but also completion of findings, communication with individuals charged, and recommendations submitted to the approving authority.
Helpful Hints. Once assigned, a investigating officer should schedule weekly visits with the appointing authority to guide and track the performance of duties. The chain of command should delay a investigating officer’s other duties until the investigation is completed by keeping the investigating officer’s name off all duty rosters. Also, a investigating officer should not be permitted to take leave until the Financial Liability Investigation is completed.
The investigating officer’s two major duties are determining proximate cause and then assigning an appropriate financial liability, if applicable. Investigating officers should concentrate on their objectives. They should approach an investigation the same way a police officer approaches the scene of an accident - initially determining the cause of the accident and not concentrating on who is to blame. They must approach the situation without emotion. Culpability will easily be determined once proximate cause is found.
Most investigating officers are unaware of how to begin. Appointing authorities can help by initially directing them to possible proximate causes based on experience and personal knowledge and then steering investigating officers to investigate these possibilities first. Mentoring by the appointing authority throughout the investigation helps considerably. The appointing authority can help an investigating officer divide the investigation into steps, set time limits on each step and then monitor progress with weekly updates.
Before the Financial Liability Investigating Officer completes his findings, the appointing authority should ensure that the findings address the proximate cause and that any pecuniary liability is only based upon that proximate cause. Ensure that the investigating officer holds those liable for the proximate cause of the loss or damage despite his personal feelings.
Approving Authority. The investigating officer and appointing authority should brief the approving authority immediately upon completion of the investigation prior to the investigating officer completing his findings. Scheduling an appointment forces the appointing authority to read the results with the investigating officer; allowing any questions the approving authority may have to be answered there on the spot. There is no sense having the whole investigation sent back when that could be avoided by answering a few questions the approving authority may have up front before the investigating officer types his final findings.
Then the investigating officer types his findings, counsels any individuals on his recommendations if he is recommending any financial liability, and hands the completed investigation to the appointing authority. The appointing authority should then ensure that the investigation is logged in on the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss Register, hand carried to the approving authority for the final signatures, and the final steps taken to close the investigation such as notifying any individuals of their liability and sending the completed form to finance to collect their debt.
Reducing processing times of your Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss is a team effort and involves many. Expecting the Investigating Officer to be the only individual to reduce processing time may actually increase the processing time.
Good Luck.
