Property Question in regards to a junior signing

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:21:23 -0400

An E3 signed for a rear-d platoon's worth of equipment when a division element rapidly deployed. The E3 was pushed into signing and accounting for property despite having not even 2 year in service (there were NCOs left in the rear...the reasoning was none of them were originally from that platoon). The E3 (now E4) did the best he could and signed the receipt (which they kept....he did not retain a copy). Now, there were 4 sets of OE-254 (2 in rear and 2 forward) when the unit came back a magical set was added to the rear d hand receipt. There were only 2 signed for originally and that never changed. Then, a magical KG175D was added to make 2 total in the rear. The PL remembers this slightly. Would the E3 get any help from IG or anyone? An acting commander had supply make this E3 take charge without knowledge of property and not even having two years in of trucks, expensive property, etc. If the company were to go about blaming the soldier, would IG or JAG be of any help? Have you ever seen anything like this?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 7:27 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:27:06 -0400

If the command doesn't support sure. There should be an investigaion anyway into this, as there always is with property loss.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Aug 20 at 2015 7:28 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:28:43 -0400

The supply is required to keep a copy of the signed hand receipt, it will show what the Soldier was signed for when he signed for the property. If there are shortages with accountability of property, make sure the Soldier understands the right to ask for a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL)....and of course the local IG can be of help to educate the Soldier on regulatory guidance as well as advice for this specific situation where you are located.

Remember, it is in the best interest of the Commander to not have any loss, so a good relationship with the commander goes a long way.

This will help with understanding the FLIPL:

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p735_5.pdf

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 8:04 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:04:26 -0400

What you are asking for could be considered legal advice (especially if you are the E3 now E4 you mentioned). Keep in mind, legal advice you get over the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it. I would highly suggest consulting a lawyer. If nothing else, he/she should be able to tell you (or the E4 in question) what options are available.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 8:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:06:00 -0400

A PFC with a lot of equipment on his Unit-level HR isn't bad, if he uses paranoia and common sense. If you sign something, you want a copy. Lack of accountability for COMSEC equipment hurts the entire CoC. You can replace an OE-254. Order the parts class 9, get that class 4 hammer somehow, and you're done. That's just an option. I don't care what anyone else says, this SPC should talk with IG/JAG, S4/G4 personnel (someone outside the CoC, maybe), and get some Memo For Records from people who witnessed the entire situation. He's gonna going to learn a lot real quick.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 8:27 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:27:40 -0400

In order for the E4 to be charged, supply will have to provide a copy of the hand receipt. It's the first thing an IO will ask for. The E4 should be able to get a copy from the supply sergeant. Just walk down there and ask for it. If they can't produce it or want you to "resign" don't. Go to the Commander. He is the one responsible for all of the property in the company. Make him aware of what is going on. Don't go to IG until you speak with the commander.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 9:19 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:19:19 -0400

I'm guessing the value of the items lost will require a FLIPL by regulation. Embrace the FLIPL. It is completely possible for a higher level commander to look at a FLIPL and assign responsibility outside of only who is signed for items on a hand receipt. Obviously, there is never a guarantee it will work out in favor of the hand receipt holder, but it can happen.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 9:59 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:59:06 -0400

Some questions about your question: Did the E3 resign his hand receipt after the "magical" OE-254 and KG175D hit the books? Did he sign a change document or lateral transfer for the OE-254 and KG175D?
You are thinking too hard you don't need legal advice just initiate a FLIPL if the command wants to charge this soldier and let higher take care of it.

Response by MSG Marcel Guaring made Aug 21 at 2015 1:57 PM

MSG Marcel Guaring — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:57:52 -0400

JAG will be involved in reviewing the packet if a FLIPL is warranted.

That Division element should have the Property book split between forward and left behind equipment. The left behind equipment should have been signed by the designated rear-d commander. Then in turn that designated person would sub-hand receipt the equipment respectively and as required.

In this case, the PFC signed for equipment with questions that needs to be address below:

1. Was a joint inventory conducted to account for all major end items and components?

2. The Soldier should have been provided with a copy of the sub-hand receipt IAW DA PAM 710-2-1.
3. Upon return of the unit, the items being added the original hand receipt can easily be identified by the items being added to the next available column of the DA Form 2062. The PFC should have originally signed in Column A on the last page with his signature, rank and date.

4. Hopefully the PFC did not resign the hand receipt with all the new items added.

A FLIPL will be required due to the cost of the added items that will exceed the Soldiers base pay and for him refusing to sign a DD Form 362.

A competent FLIPL officer should be able to come up with a just findings and hold the appropriate person/persons accountable.

Lastly, this is a good example of poor property accountability and lack of CSDP.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 2:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:12:18 -0400

It is never a good idea to have a PFC sign for anything other than personal equipment. Based in what you stated, there were others who could've signed for the equipment. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done since he has already signed for the equipment. Initiate the FLIPL. There will be a lot of people culpable in this and they will all be held financially liable, including the PFC.

Response by PFC Michael Falderoff made Aug 22 at 2015 10:23 PM

PFC Michael Falderoff — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:23:56 -0400

Looks like a total lack of leadership and responsibility. No proper officer or NCO should EVER let this happen. There needs to be a minimum rank of who can sign these so Teresa is no fraud. This situation had fraud written all over it from the beginning !!!

Response by CPL Randy Bautista made Aug 24 at 2015 10:11 AM

CPL Randy Bautista — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:11:36 -0400

Well if it's not on the original hand receipt they can't do nothing it wasn't there. If it becomes an issue open a initiate a FLIPL this will start an investigation. IG can't help your really at this point besides give you advice. It would like property is being added to a receipt that you signed... I would start a FLIPL don't sign any statement of charges of any Kind wait till the FLIPL is done.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 24 at 2015 11:32 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:32:19 -0400

They should assign an investigating officer.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Aug 24 at 2015 7:35 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:35:30 -0400

Before we go skipping off to FLIPL land, got a few questions that will probably need the PBO to get involved for some of the answers.

1) Were the items on hand prior to the deployment? There's a 4-digit number on each LIN item on the Primary Hand Receipt; this is the Julian Date for the last action involving that LIN.

2) If the items were on hand, who were they initially issued to? The Commander's Summary of Issue should list that, including serial numbers. If there's no Summary, scrub the sub hand receipts.

3) If they were received during the deployment, were they picked up from the PBO's office or SSA? Are they sitting in the supply room?

4) Is there a signed change document issuing the items to the private/specialist?

This should be the "causative research" phase. This determines whether it's a clerical error or the equipment is actually missing.

Response by SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. made Aug 26 at 2015 12:58 AM

SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:58:57 -0400

Great responses with technical answers but I think the point is missed a bit.
I find the situation disturbing.
Though the inexperienced soldier signed for the equipment the questions to be asked are:
1. Who told this soldier he must sign for the equipment?
2. Where was the Supply Sergeant at the time.
3. Why wasnt S4 involved?
4. Did the Battalion Command know of this and if so, why did it not act accordingly.
5. Why wasnt an NCO or Officer signed for the equipment.
6. Who approved of the magical appearance of the equipment and who signed for it to place it on the books.
7. Where is the PBO Guidance.
8. Was it a situation of dont look at it just sign it.
9. Was the supervisor aware of thr situation and if so why did he not act.
10. Prior to the deployment was the soldier informed of the situation and did the supply sergeant properly train the soldier to take over in his stead.
11. Who was avaiable for guidance in this situation.
12. When did the soldier graduate school and when did he join the unit.
I have more to add but ill leave the rest of the questions to myself.
The failure starts at the company level then up to as far as brigade.Prior to a deployment it should have been established that the rear d commander was to sign for the equipment or at least the senior person at the company level.
A PFC with no experience other than school will not know how to do more than pick up supplies and fill in the blanks unless properly trained by a COMPETANT Supply Sergeant and S4.
A BC even if deployed should never allow this situation to happen.
There is also a lack of leadership and responsibility on the SNCOs in the rear. Im not a 92y doesnt fly.
The fact that items appear magically and responsibility placed on a PFC, especially a young one is criminal. He based off of the given information was abused.
Is a FLIPL warrented? Absolutly.
Should an investigation be conducted? Yes but above the Battalion level.
Is an IG investigation warranted? Yes but only if Battalion goes against the PFC.
CID? If the acts were done with intent and ass covering in mind.
I was a just out of school SPC with 4 years artillery experience behind me and thrust into the temporary Supply Sergeant sp ot while the SS, an experienced SPCwent to school. I had military exprience behind me which gave me an advantage and had help from my PBO next door. This happened for over 95 days in Korea. Three separate occasions the days were split. My commander in the end wanted me to extend and didnt trust the two Supply Sergeant that were supposed to do their jobs in the year I was there.
I picked up quick and since I had military experience with a PBO backing me Iwasnt fooled or pushed around unlike a PFC with no experience or back up.
Since when is a PFC the responsible and accountable officer?
Disturbing to say the least.

Response by SFC Reginald Jones made Aug 30 at 2015 9:58 PM

SFC Reginald Jones — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:58:11 -0400

E-3 should not be accountable, because he stepped up when those senior to him stepped back from responsibility. A report of survey can be done to right off any loss. The E-3 should be awarded and commended.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2017 12:55 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 00:55:43 -0400

I think I see what you're saying. If the Soldier signing for it was a 92Y, he/she should know what to do. It's one of the first (and most emphasized) topics taught during AIT.

Now, as far as who should sign, if the equipment belonged to a Platoon, the person signing should be the PSG, (PL if PSG wasn't available). Otherwise, it would be the next highest ranking person in that Platoon or whoever the commander chooses. Once that Soldier has signed for the equipment, he/she can choose to sub it down to other people in the Platoon. Now, regardless of rank, the person signing should have had some sort of training in regards to handling property. Basics of it would be to teach them how to properly do a layout, identify which components he/she should have based on the TM (BOM if the unit is using GCSS-Army), what is a shortage annex and how to use it, how often he should be laying out this equipment to ensure nothing is missing, how to sub it down to someone else that might need this equipment, how it should be stored (specially if it involves sensitive items), and just generally what their responsibilities are. This training should be comming from someone knowledgeable on the topic (92Y).

You mentioned that new equipment showed up. As long as he does all his inventories properly and has shortages, just update the numbers and sign again. Remember, always make sure everything is there (or that you have a shortages annex if it isn't) before you sign anything. If anything does come up missing, that's when we start looking at FLIPL.

And yes, this has happened. I personally, am signed for the arms room at my unit as a PFC with only 14 months time in service. Before I signed for anything though, I received a counseling from my commander stating what he expects from me as a sub hand receipt holder. But the counseling statement was per SOP. I guess in the case you're describing, someone (an NCO) should have stood up for that Soldier to make sure that he knows everything he needs to know before he signs. Just basics of being an NCO (looking out for the Soldier).