PBO is telling me that I have to create one shortage annex for every single serial numbered item on my Property Book. Is this true?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:52:32 -0500

So I am currently deployed to Afghanistan, and my company is attached to SEAL Team 2. Needless to say, they have rather "different" approach when it comes to property. I am also an infantry company commander so I freely admit that my property knowledge is more limited than say an FSC or Mech company commander.

My company will be RIPing soon so we are getting all of our TPE ready to transfer to the new unit. Their PBO is insisting that we have to create shortage annexes by serial numbered item; meaning if I have 48 MBITRs, I have to create 48 seperate shortage annexes. I have done 4 change of command inventories in the past (3 as an XO and 1 as a commander) and every commander, including myself, wanted to see shortage annexes by like item; meaning that using the same example of 48 MBITRs, I would have 1 shortage annex refecting the shortages for all 48 MBITRs. So the end item description would be PRC-148 MBITR, and quantity would be 48, and the alpha column would reflect the quanity of each BII piece on hand(ie 48 handmics, 48 antennas, 48 spare batteries).

Using a even better example (and more time consuming) with our 16 RG-33's. By my preferred method, there would be 1 shortage annex for reflecting the on hand BII/COEI for all 16 trucks. This would allow the incoming commander to put all 16 trucks on-line, have the TC for each truck layout out all the BII/COEI in front of the truck, and then the incoming commander can call out "fire extinguisher!" and everyone holds up their fire extinguisher, and if their are 14 fire extinguishers on the shortage annex, then there better be 14 fire exinguishers being held in the air. This way the commander would not have to conduct the same inventory 16 different times. It also prevents people from shifting BII on the first item inventoried, down to one of the last like items being inventoried (essentially pulling one over on the commander).

Now I'm not here to argue over the preferred technique for conducting property layouts. Everyone has their preferred techniques and there is a million different ways to do things to reach the same endstate. What I really want to know is if by regulation, my preferred method is allowed, or have I been doing it wrong for the past 7 years?

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 6 at 2014 12:58 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:58:50 -0500

Sir, I believe you to be absolutely correct. I have never heard of what that PBO is suggesting. But I am friends with a CW3 who is an expert in this but he's not on Rally Point (I'm considering ending the friendship if he doesn't take my invite). I will ask him tomorrow and maybe be able to give you a better answer.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 6 at 2014 1:11 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 01:11:32 -0500

Sir I just went through DA PAM 710-2-1. Page 91, A through F #1 seems to support your position, but I'll leave that to your interpretation.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Jan 6 at 2014 7:58 AM

CPT Mike M. — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 07:58:10 -0500

It seems to me that every PBO interprets the regulation slightly differently, usually for reasons of covering your and their 4th point of contact. I've never heard of or seen that kind of requirement so don't think that's how the book was meant to be interpreted. However, unless you're able to get his seniors to get him to ease up on the requirement overkill, he kinda calls the shots. One of those positions where rank isn't a factor and he can require anything he wants (within reason).

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 6 at 2014 10:11 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:11:17 -0500

So I'm in the ABIC course today and a PBO just happens to be sitting next to me. He says yes that is correct for serial #'d items. (I missed the serial number part last night) He said unless they are all the same thing (i.e. 48 MBITRs) it needs to be seperate.

But he also echoed some of CPT Miller's thoughts as well. I guess the bottom line is if you can explain the situation to PBO you may be able to meet a compromise. Hope this helps.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 8 at 2014 5:38 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:38:57 -0500

This is what I had to do when I was a Battalion S4. So painful. I still wake up some in cold shivers some nights remembering those days. Thank God for high speed NCOs to work with me on it.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2014 6:55 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:55:29 -0500

It sounds ridiculous, but it makes perfect sense. Each of the shortage annexes addresses that specific end item and its components.

If I were in the position, I'd tell my PBO that it is a great idea and that I want a matching document that compiles the shortage for like model numbers for my inventory purposes. I may end up signing a bunch of annexes, but this would also facilitate the easiest transition for sub-handreceipting all that property down without forcing a new inventory each time to re-establish the shortage annex for the individual end item.