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)
9. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PROPERTY WAS LOST DAMAGED
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.
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 )
9. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PROPERTY WAS LOST DAMAGED
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.
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.
Proximate Cause. Proximate cause is the initial act which sets off a natural and continuous sequence of events that produces the loss or damage. It seems to be the hardest concept for some to understand.
If one can determine the proximate cause of loss or damage, then liability can be assessed to the individual or individuals that caused the procximate cause. If, for instance, the proximate cause of an accident is the improper use of a ground guide, then liabiltiy would not be to the ground guide but to the indivual that used them improperly.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment