Slide #1. Introduction Slide. This podcast is meant for all of you who were not able to make it to the World-wide Logistics Training Workshop (WLTW) at Redstone Arsenal 21-25 April 2008, I wish to share the Army G4 logistical message workshop with you. This was an hour long workshop. I do not plan to have this podcast last for one hour so I will “zoom” through some of these messages. Please print out or have available for viewing the slides attached to this podcast and flip through the slides as I talk about each of them.
Slide #2. Messages and Projects. Today I plan on discussing how to retrieve logistical messages. I will give a short overview of 37 published messages starting with the messages that were last published and moving back in time to the oldest message. At the end of the presentation, I will also discuss some of the Army G4 working projects.
Slide #3. Retrieving Messages. To retrieve logistical messages, you should go to LOGNet in the News Items topic, Messages to the field. The website is on the slide. Subscribe to the Messages to the Field topic and you will be sent an email every time a logistical message is added giving you the chance to go to the supplied link and view each message. Messages that affect PBUSE usually can be found on the PBUSE sign-in screen.
Slide #4. Short Description. For each of the 37 messages, I will give you the publish date, which is important when you wish to find them on LOGNet. I will also provide some key points of each message as well as the POC. I do wish to point out that I am the POC for only one of the 37 messages. If you want more information, you should contact the POCs provided on the message.
Slide #5. Procurement of Cargo Containers. A message that the Army G4 just published on 4 April discusses the procurement procedures for general cargo and other than general cargo containers. This message tells the PBO that they are supposed to process the requisitions. Although these containers are currently coded as expendable items, that will change in the very near future. These containers will be coded to nonexpendable IAW the changes made to DA Pam 708-2 in November 2007. I have already had phone calls from staff officers stating that PBO’s are refusing to process these requisitions. In order to gain accountability of the containers as they are changed from expendable to nonexpendable, we need the support of every PBO to grab the accountability at the time of requisition even though they must order these as expendable items until the ARC is changed.
Slide #6. Policy for Combat Uniforms Issued as OCIE to Deployers. This message discusses the recent change to ACU accountability made possible through a signed presidential bill. This change has been made to the recent edition of AR 710-2. Combat uniforms issued to Soldiers as OCIE, are now non-recoverable items and CTA 50-900 Appendix F has been updated to reflect this change. The uniforms will remain on Soldier OCIE records but will not have to be turned in to the CIF and will transfer with the Soldier from place to place. This message also contains a request that before any ACU is disposed of, that the small IR square on each shoulder patch is removed prior to disposal. These IR patches were added to ACUs to prevent friendly-fire incidents. By disposing of them improperly, the IR squares could be used by the enemy and prevent a Soldier from firing on them assuming they are a friendly force. We need your help in getting this message about the IR patches down to every Soldier.
Slide #7. Treatment of Uniforms with Permethrin. We now have three types of ACU’s – two of which are fire-retardant. The Army has found that when treating the fire-retardant uniforms with the insect repellent, the repellant is not evenly distributed. The Army is already researching the ability to add the insect repellent to the fire-retardant uniforms before issue.
Slide #8. Establishment of MOS OCIE Retained Issue. The Army has established OCIE retained issue. Last October, we instituted a regional retained issue which was very successful. This message announces the fact that the retained issue will now be done Army-wide for all active duty Soldiers. The list of retained issue – those OCIE items that will not be turned in after issue as the Soldier PCS’s from one place to the next – can be found in the newest edition of CTA 50-900, found on FMSWeb. The OCIE will be shipped at government expense.
Slide #9. Automatics Reset Induction List (ARI) Change. A change to the handling of ARI, now requires that all units using the ARMT version 6.5 to turn-in equipment in Theater must turn-in 100% of their ARI. The previous percentage was 25%.
Slide #10. Unserviceable EPLRS Radio T/I Procedures. The EPLRS radio is no longer under warranty. Any unserviceable EPLRS must be sent to Raytheon as a supply transaction. The message gives step by step instructions on how to turn in the radios to the SSA and how and where the SSA is to ship them. Remember that EPLRS are CCI and that they have special handling procedures.
Slide #11. SARSS 1 OMA NIIN Table (DS-RX) Elimination. Please don’t ask me any questions about this message as it concerns a SARSS change. The message requires that by 5 September 2008, the OMA NIIN table be deleted. The message gives step by step directions. If you wish more information, please contact the POC on the message.
Slide #12. Ballistic Fragmentation Eye Protection. 10% of battlefield casualties are a result of eye injuries. The ballistic glasses that we are issuing prevent these eye injuries. Therefore we want Soldiers to wear them. This message gives you descriptions of each type of ballistic glasses as well as some commercial models that can be purchased. Step by step directions are provided.
Slide #13. Establishment of Combat Action Streamer. The reason I am providing you with a G1 message on the establishment of the Combat Action Streamer is because as logisticians, you know that we will have to order these streamers. The procedures to order them are IAW AR 840-10 and are found in the message for those of you who have never ordered streamers before.
Slide #14. Unauthorized Transportation of Soldier’s Personal Items. We have a problem with personal effects being shipped back to home station as unit cargo. There was a message published in 2005 which gives instructions on how to transport personal effects for Soldiers killed in action, missing in action, and wounded medically evacuated. These procedures do not have any personal effects being held by the command and transported back as unit cargo, yet many units are doing so. There is also a problem with Soldiers purchasing items in Theater that will not fit in their authorized baggage and placing them into the unit cargo containers to be shipped back to home station. No personal effects are to be shipped back to home station via unit cargo, no matter the reason.
Slide #15. First Source for SKOT. PM SKOT is to be contacted and given a chance to supply hand tools before any tools are locally purchased. Any hand tools of sets, kits, or outfits locally purchased must be approved by an O-6 commander prior to purchase. This new change will be reflected in the next publication of DA Pam 700-60 which should be published in the next couple of months.
Slide #16. Physical Security Policy for Transporting Army Weapons and Ammo. This message is not a change of any policy but gives, in one document, the entire set of polices and procedures on how to ship weapons and ammo in commercial aircraft. We have had problems with Soldiers being denied the ability to ship their weapon with commercial airliners and leaving their weapons at the airlines. We want to prevent this as well as ensure that weapons and ammunition are handled properly.
Slide #17. Security and Accountability of Sensitive Items. The VCSA was concerned with the amount of controlled items that are being found in the hands of the enemy. This message was published to remind all Army leaders that the security of our controlled and other high value items is critical. We don’t want our Soldiers killed by the enemy using our own equipment.
Slide #18. Military Uniforms and Accessories Wear Out Dates. This message is a G1 message but just like the one concerning the combat streamers, logisticians are the ones providing the information to Soldiers concerning the wear out dates of uniforms. This message gives you those dates for items such as BDU’s, DCU’s, black combat boots, and Jungle boots. So, I ask that you use this message to get the word out concerning these wear out dates.
Slide #19. FY08 PVS-7 Image Intensifier Tubes (I2T). The Army is currently short of serviceable PVS-7 image intensifier tubes. This message lists the mitigation strategies that we are using. This message gives step by step instructions on what to do with unserviceable intensifier tubes.
Slide #20. Use of Army Expert ASL Team. The use of the ASL expert team has been a real success in Theater in the management of ASL. Therefore, the use of the strategies deployed by the ASL expert team will continue to be used in Theater as well as in Europe and Korea that have direct support customers.
Slide #21. Updated FBCB2 and BFT Unit and Theater Management. This message discusses the installation and deinstallation of FBCB2 and BFT installation kits. If your unit is deploying, it is essential that you understand these policies.
Slide #22. Revised USR Reporting Requirements. The Army has deployed a new USR program which uses the on hand balance of equipment accountable in PBUSE through a LIW feed. The commander still has the ability to change that quantity when there is the possibility that more or less equipment is actually available because of loans, transfers and other transactions. At the monthly strategic readiness reviews chaired by the VCSA, each deployed and deploying BCTs are shown. The Vice has made numerous notes of BCT commanders changing the Equipment on Hand quantities to show more than want is on-hand in PBUSE. I have received numerous requests to justify the quantities supplied by LIW to this new USR program. In most cases, the query was initiated because the commander was reporting more than what is shown on accountable records. In almost all cases, the queries resulted in the finding that the units had more equipment than what was shown on their accountable records. Not a good finding to give to the VCSA who, like all the Army staff, is quite concerned of our property accountability. This message doesn’t discuss all that but it does give the procedures on how to use the stand-alone program. I told you about the problems because accountability issues should be a concern of all leaders, logisticians, and especially property book officers.
Slide #23. Operation Total Recall FRAGO #2. This is the only message of the 37 messages where I am the POC. The main points of this FRAGO were: 1) An OCIE inventory. This inventory’s intent was to reconcile OCIE that had been issued to units and Soldiers accounted for on PBUSE with those assets issued to Soldiers using our new OCIE enterprise-system CIF ISM. But, the results were far from ideal. There were many OCIE items that were added back to accountable records- that is a good news story - but hardly any of these items were those issued by RFI. 2) Because of the introduction of the national nonstandard catalog managed in SLAMIS, we need to realign our user-created catalogs in PBUSE. This will allow for us to have national visibility of the nonstandard items on property book records. The deadline for property book officers to accomplish this task Is 1 October 2008 except for IMCOM units that are currently or just recently migrated to PBUSE. They will have until 1 April 2009. There are tools within SLAMIS that will assist you in this task. Right now we have over 2 million items that need to be realigned. 3) FRAGO #2 is our first attempt at resolving serial number discrepancies. Currently we are concentrating on UIT items. When we first deployed PBUSE, it would allow for duplicate serial numbers. We no longer allow that. So, we need to get the duplicate serial numbers resolved. We are also trying to resolve UIT serial numbers that contain all zeros or that contain N/A. I was amazed to find that PBOs would use all zeros or N/A as serial numbers for controlled items. 4) The FRAGO also announced more changes to the processing of a financial liability investigation of property loss. It is now required, not a choice, that the inquiry/investigation number be assigned prior to the accountable officer posting a document number. An additional change is that the approving authority’s UIC is to be placed in block two. This is so that we will be able to track the financial liability investigations better and ensure that the investigation is completed. The FRAGO also reiterated who can perform the functions of an approving authority. The approving authority must be an O-6 commander or above and cannot be delegated below the O-6 level. If the final result of the investigation is a loss of equipment $100,000 or greater or a loss of a controlled item, then the approving authority is “bumped” up to a general officer or a SES. I want to reiterate that the approving authority is only “bumped” up when the final loss meets the requirements – not the items listed at the initiation of the financial liability of investigation. This policy is not just for Theater; it is intended for every Army unit or agency. The appointing authority requirement s remains unchanged. You can look at the financial liability investigation information posted in PBUSE on LIW, in reportable assets. In the Army Serial Number Tracker (ARSNT) module you can view the UIT serial number discrepancies.
Slide #24. Turn In of Interceptor Body Armor. We have a new body armor – IOTV . Some units are being issued the new body armor prior to deployment and others are getting them in Theater. Issuing them means that we have Soldiers with two sets of body armor. This message gives disposition instructions for those extra sets. It also discusses components of the body armor as well as care instructions. It directs that mixed ACU/DCU/BDU pattern body armor is authorized.
Slide #25. Materiel Status Data Flow Reporting Policy. This message addresses how SAMS-E data will be processed and reporting frequencies and consolidation procedures.
Slide #26. FY08 RESET FRAGO. This message details equipment-related RESET procedures and defines how the Army will execute RESET operations in FY08. This message has 13 attachments. In LOGNet, you will be directed to an AKO site to view the attachments since LOGNet will only allow one attachment to the conversations.
Slide #27. Establishment of OCIE Central Management Office. This only applies to the Active Component. OCIE now has a central manager. No longer will Ft. Campbell be short items while Ft. Bragg has excess – the central manager will move OICE stocks around to ensure that no one is short. The central manager will order all OCIE and give disposition instructions for excess. This message details what items will be managed and also discusses the OCIE property accountability system, CIF ISM. CIF ISM allows for a Soldier to be issued OCIE at Ft. Hood , turn it in anywhere in the world, and his/her CIF records are updated to show the turn-in. This ability will certainly give us an advantage in the future when units deploy or Soldiers are processed through a CRC. It has also given us the ability turn-in the OCIE for KIA’s and wounded medically evacuated. The OCIE is sent through the Joint Personal Effects Depot (JPED) to Aberdeen Proving Grounds where it is cleaned and processed. The JPED then turns in the OCIE at the Aberdeen Proving Ground CIF and their records are cleared for the items that were turned in.
Slide #28. Retrograde Operations. We have published three messages which give specific guidance by class of supply on equipment and materiel retrograde in three Theaters – CENTCOM, EUSA, and USAREUR.
Slide #29. PEO/PM Equipment Fielding in CENTCOM AOR. Having the PM’s use PBUSE to issue equipment has been in the works for a couple of years. Making the PM’s use PBUSE forces them to issue equipment with valid LINs/NSLINs and NSNs/MCNs. If the item is not in the catalog, the PM’s must request a SLAMIS NSLIN/MCN in order to put the equipment into their PBUSE account to issue. The proof-of-principle equipment is the MRAP’s. Not only can we say that we have 100% accountability of the vehicles that have been fielded, we can also say that we 100% accountability of all the auxiliary equipment as well, such as BFT, SINCGARS, etc. This message provides execution guidance. All PM’s issuing equipment in the CENTCOM Theater must be using PBUSE to do so by the end of this fiscal year; all others by the end of FY09.
Slide #30. Interim In-Transit Visibility (ITV). Gives specific directions on the use of RFID tags – what must be tagged, what level of detail required, and procedures to view ITV data.
Slide #31. Security of Army Computers. Although this message was published by the Army Provost Marshall, there is an accountability requirement hidden in this message which specifies that all Army computers must be issued to the user using hand receipt procedures. This does not mean that computers must be on the property book. What this means is that there must accountability at the company-level. Which means units must use PBUSE to hand receipt to the user or use a DA Form 2062.
Slide #32. Change 1 to LBE Policy. This message provides clarification to the original LBE message (6 Sep 07) which we will discuss in just a bit. Supplemental guidance to the original message is given in the areas of lateral transfers, maintenance standards and temporary loans.
Slide #33. CENTCOM SCMO Checklist. This is a G1 message, but as we have already found, there is a logistical piece of this message as well. This is the official checklist for Summary Court Martial Officers assigned to handle personal effects of Soldiers KIA, MIA, or wounded medically-evacuated. Since our supply sergeants and other supply personnel usually are involved with the handling of personal effects, this message needs to get to every commander in Theater. This is one of those messages that needs to be in the Pre-Deployment file because if you wait until the situation exists, you won’t know the proper procedures for handling that Soldier’s personal effects.
Slide #34. Heirloom PE Chests. Speaking of personal effects, this message provides instructions on how to acquire these chests for the family members of the deceased Soldier and who can stock them for use.
Slide #35. Maintenance Stock Policy SAMS-E. Since SAMS-E can handle the accountability of maintenance stocks, this message gives directions on what stock can be maintained.
Slide #36. Revised ARPL. At the conference, I found that usually only one or two individuals in each brief knew what the ARPL is. But, when I asked how many of them knew what the DAMPL was, almost everyone raised their hands. The ARPL replaced the DAMPL. The ARPL has different priorities for units depending on where they are in the ARFORGEN model and is used to distribute equipment in accordance with G-3 priorities. If you are having difficulties ordering equipment, your UIC may not be on the ARPL. You should call the item manager to ensure that the ARPL contains your UICs.
Slide #37. LBE Policy and Procedures. This is the LBE that has a change 1 that we discussed just a few slides back. Any information about LBE is contained in this message including correct UIC structure, PBIC and TAC.
Slide #38. TPE Modification. This is an extremely long message in two parts. If you print them both out, it will be a stack of paper about ½ inch high. This message contains the list of equipment that has been declared TPE by the Army G3 - that is the equipment has been designated not to leave Theater and is accounted for by AMCs TPE Property Book Office.
Slide #39. FRAGO #2 ARMT. This FRAGO provides procedures for the use of the Automated RESET Management Tool. This is the tool that is being used by redeploying units to manage ARI as well as other equipment being inducted into RESET. LOGSA provides training in the use of this module.
Slide #40. Off-line Cancellations. This message is a supplement to a message about two years ago that prohibits the use of eMall and other off-line requisitioning methods except with the use of the GPC. The reason these off-line methods are a problem is financial, as the Army does not receive a bill until the equipment has already been purchased. The obligation is never captured nor is the requisition so the equipment cannot be canceled if funds are not available. This message now prohibits the use of emails, fax, internet, or other off-line methods to cancel requisitions for the exact same reason. SARSS or the GPC should be the only method used to requisition supplies and equipment.
Slide #41. Now I am going to go quickly over some projects in the works.
Slide #42. Did you all know that you could use AKO to view your OCIE records (active component only)? In AKO, go to My Clothing, and your CIF records will be displayed. We are working on opening this ability to commanders. I challenge you to look at yours and see how accurate they are.
AR 735-5 is currently in the final stages of revision. We expect to start informal staffing by the end-of-May which means the final should be out by October or so. We could be held up with the update of the two forms which go along with this regulation – DA Form 1659 and 7531. These forms had to be updated to reflect the new requirements such as assigning the investigation number prior to the document number. The update will reflect the new civilian personnel system NSPS vice GS or WG. It will also contain new DD Form 200 completion instructions to take into consideration multiple items and the use of other continuation sheets. The adjustment limit of durable hand tools will be updated from $100 to $500 per incident – that is if it is published as currently written. This ability will be supplemented with durable and expendable components of SKO’s. Because there is just as much of a chance of a OE-254 component being lost in a quick unit movement from place to place as there is for a mechanic to lose some of his or her hand tools during field maintenance. We are also adding procedures for accounting for losses of other durable items without having to do a financial liability investigation.
The last thing I would like to discuss with you is a new procedure which will not be in the next AR 735-5 but will probably be added in a rapid update once the policies and procedures have been determined. Here’s the situation – you, the PBO know that Charlie Company has 3 more M1’s that what are on the property book. Currently there is nothing you can do about it unless you get a copy of a receipt or an FOI signed by the commander. The Report of Automated Accountability Discrepancy process will allow you as the PBO to add these items to the property book without the intervention of the unit commander. The commander will get the RAAD after the equipment has been added to allow him or her to rebut the addition. This process will also be used to change serial numbers or one PBO to request another PBO to update their records when you are unable to add equipment to PBUSE because of duplicate records. This process is in the early developmental stages. We want the whole process to be automated rather than manual.
Well, that s all I briefed at the WLTW. I hope this information has been helpful.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
WLTW Logistical Message Army G4 Workshop
Friday, February 29, 2008
PODCast #3, Hand Receipt Maintenance
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.
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.
