Lost - Missing Kit ( merged )

[theoldyoungguy]

Loyaleddie, I believe what Armyvern suggests and tells you should be taken for near gold.. she runs the base QM here in Gagetown and has MUCHO experience with these type of incidents.  Good luck.

Ps: my Lost/damage report for my $4.70 balaclava will be running through the system shortly Vern.

It has entirely been taken at face value and I am extremely greatful for her imput, and it has been extremely helpful in understanding the process. The only remaining question I have would be from her experiences does she think im gonna end up paying for this kit assuming my kit is not found. I am so adament on receiving others thoughts in this due to the financial strain I am in right now, and I am greatly concerned with the thought of paying hundreds if not upwards of a thousand dollers for lost kit. Just concerned at the moment as to whether or not Im gonna have to pay out a large chunk of cash I don't have. Armyvern it is also a relief that no admin action will probably be taken. Just concerned with the monetary factor. Thanks again for your advice.

 

[armyvern]

Armyvern it is also a relief that no admin action will probably be taken. Just concerned with the monetary factor. Thanks again for your advice.

Loyaleddie,

Ultimately the decision on this will rest with your Commanding Officer. Input into Part II of the MLR the details of the events surrounding the loss that you wrote in the original post in this thread. The determination of the outcome of your MLR by the CO will include his/her taking into consideration whether or not he/she believes you to be "willfully negligent" or "partially negligent" or "not negligent." All you can do is relate your details of the loss in Part 2 for him/her to read as part of the MLR when it reaches their level.

Although I do not see grounds for finding you 'willfully negligent" in the loss of this kit, that does not preclude Admin action. An easier way to put it follows:

Willful Negligence: CO can recommend recovery of the full dollar value (Admin Action)and/or appropriate disciplinary action.

Partial Negligence: CO can recommend an Admin Deduction (Admin Action) for partial value of the lost kit items up to a maximum of 50% of the value of the kit or $200.00 dallars, whichever is less. CO may also recommend appropraite level of disciplanary action if he/she feels the circumstances of the loss warrant it.

Not Negligent: CO can recommend write-off of the full dollar value of the kit items if he/she deems that you are not negligent in that the kit items were appropriately under your care and control to the extent possible at the time and circumstance; or that the loss occured due to circumstances beyond your control during the performance of your duties to Her Majesty The Queen.

Ultimately, your statement in Part II of the MLR, and the follow-up statements by your Chain of Command (that will be input by them upon Clothing's returning your MLR to them after your kit re-issue) regarding the circumstances of the events surrounding the loss will be what the CO uses to make his/her recommendations.

I can not predict what your superiors will input into the sections and therefore I can not predict what your CO will ultimately decide, but experience shows me that most COs do utilize common sense and take into account the circumstances surrounding the loss when determining their decision.

 

[armyvern]

Ps: my Lost/damage report for my $4.70 balaclava will be running through the system shortly Vern.

Have you filed it yet? I got your e-mail and your balaclava was recovered from the jacket pocket of the IECS jacket you exchanged for your ICE last Thursday. It is on my filing cabinet awaiting your next visit to our location.

We have also recovered 1 ID Card, 2 sets of car keys, 1 pair of socks, a sewing kit and a couple of other lovely items.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Vern, it was my fleece tuque... not my balaclava!! As for the two sets of MY car keys... I'll be needing those back too.  I was looking at selling those this weekend.

 

[theoldyoungguy]

@armyvern, thank you again for your imput it has been very helpful and greatly appreciated. You have put me at a little ease. Thank you.

 

[mudgunner49]

Have you filed it yet? I got your e-mail and your balaclava was recovered from the jacket pocket of the IECS jacket you exchanged for your ICE last Thursday. It is on my filing cabinet awaiting your next visit to our location.

We have also recovered 1 ID Card, 2 sets of car keys, 1 pair of socks, a sewing kit and a couple of other lovely items.

You DO take care of folks, don't you???!!!


blake

 

[armyvern]

Vern, it was my fleece tuque... not my balaclava!! As for the two sets of MY car keys... I'll be needing those back too.  I was looking at selling those this weekend.

Hmmm...we have recovered Qty 1 each FLEECE BALACLAVA. But seeing as how you are unsure as to whether or not this is yours...tell me:

1) Is there a label with your last 3 and last name in yours? ; and
2) What size is it....

If you can correctly answer these skill testing questions...it's yours.

Seeing as how you were the only pers to contact me at work about an AWOL hat...you may indeed answer them correctly...or not!!  >

One set of car keys has now been claimed so you are out of luck with the dealership you were going to set up. About the second set of keys...what is the make? How many keys are on the key ring and what colour/pattern is the key ring? One incorrect answer and you are eliminated from the contest. Sorry. Gotta be mean here because mudgunner49 thinks I'm nice!

 

[Bzzliteyr]

um...the keys were silver in colour..they are for either a import or an export.. obviously..um.. I am not sure if I can describe the keyring to a tee.. but I am on my way over with an X-Large Timmies coffee that I don't feel like drinking anymore.. maybe you can help me? (wink wink)

 

[gun plumber]

Hopefully Vern will jump in here, but anyone else with first hand experience is welcome and appreciated.
The short story is this:
Left my motor gloves in a buddy's car. He went back to Val. My fault, Want to get a new set, take full responsibility for the loss. Do I have to submit a lost kit report if I take full responsibility,or can I just go to the wicket and pay at stores?
Also,am I entitled to a annual issue of close to skin clothing,or am I to bring my holy(not religious,just worn)close to skin kit in for exchange?
Thanks for taking the time to read,and if applicable,replying.

 

[George Wallace]

Officially......you are supposed to fill out the Lost Damage Report and submit it.  If the right recommendations are made on it by your supervisor and CO you may have the items re-issued at no cost to you.  If not, then you will have them replace at a cost to you. 

I don't think there are any "Cash Sales" left in any of the Clothing Stores across the country.

 

[armyvern]

Hopefully Vern will jump in here, but anyone else with first hand experience is welcome and appreciated.
The short story is this:
Left my motor gloves in a buddy's car. He went back to Val. My fault, Want to get a new set, take full responsibility for the loss. Do I have to submit a lost kit report if I take full responsibility,or can I just go to the wicket and pay at stores?
Also,am I entitled to a annual issue of close to skin clothing,or am I to bring my holy(not religious,just worn)close to skin kit in for exchange?
Thanks for taking the time to read,and if applicable,replying.

Fill out the MLR stating "I am a numpty."  >

Under "Accept Responsibility for Loss/ Accept Financial Responsibility for Loss." click "Yes." Take the MLR to your WO or above (it is a CTS item and therefore must have your supervisor's signature -minimum rank WO- in the next section regardless of whether you are accepting financial responsibility or not).

Once you've got that signature, go back to clothing stores. It depends on your Base Clothing's specific set-up how they recover the funds from you. Here we Admin deduct from pay, but Gagetown maintains a Standing Advance to recover monies directly right at Clothing Stores. IE a Cash Sales. But, the difference is now you just can't buy anything ouright as "Cash Sales" doesn't exist, but most clothing stores have retained a cash ability to deal with monetary recoveries relating to MLRs.

As for your scivvies; also a local policy. I don't want your gotch back here. We'll just issue your entitlement to next of skin items once per entitlement period. Some things you are entitled to exchange once per year, others every two years. It depends on the item. Some bases want you to bring back the waist bands etc for a one-for-one exchange. Sometimes, it's just easier to bring in the worn item, then there should be ZERO question about them exchanging it for you.

My take is ... I don't need your garbage in my trash cans when you can chuck them at home yourself. You'd have to contact your supporting clothing stores to confirm your local policy.

 

[gun plumber]

Thanks Vern and GW,

Will fill out the form tommorow and sit in the corner for an hour with the pointy hat for "losing my mittens".

 

[armyvern]

Thanks Vern and GW,

Will fill out the form tommorow and sit in the corner for an hour with the pointy hat for "losing my mittens".

I'm not so sure about that ...

If someone came to see me with an MLR that stated in the "Circumstances of Loss" section:

"I have lost my mittens for I am a numpty."

I'd be laughing so hard (and YOU have never heard me laugh ... it is indeed a treat for the ears) ... I'd sign the damn thing and kick you out of the office right quick.

Vern

 

[gun plumber]

I'll try to reword it a little bit more eloquently,but that's my back up plan.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Don't forget that normally you will not be charged the full amount of kit that has been lost.  There is a range of charges based on the dollar value of the item(s) lost -

38.03 – ADMINISTRATIVE DEDUCTIONS
(1) Any circumstances which may give rise to liability of an officer or non-commissioned member to reimburse the Crown or a non-public property organization under article 38.01 (Liability for Public or Non-public Property), shall be investigated (see Chapter 21 – Summary Investigations and Boards of Inquiry). A statement from the member concerned should be obtained if practical.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this article, where he is of the opinion that liability under article 38.01 exists and that reimbursement is warranted under the circumstances, an administrative deduction from the pay account of the officer or non-commissioned member concerned in an amount sufficient to make reimbursement in full or in part may be ordered by:
(a) a commanding officer, except when
(i) the amount of the proposed deduction exceeds $ 200,
(ii) the officer or non-commissioned member concerned objects on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive, or
(iii) a loss of or deficiency in public funds is involved;
(b) an officer commanding a formation designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff or an officer commanding a command, except when

(i) the officer or non-commissioned member concerned objects to a deduction exceeding $ 50 when proposed by an officer commanding a formation or $ 100 when proposed by an officer commanding a command, on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive, or
(ii) a loss of or deficiency in public funds is involved; or

(c) the Chief of the Defence Staff, except when the officer or non-commissioned member concerned objects to a proposed deduction exceeding $250 on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (8), before any administrative deduction is ordered under paragraph (2) or increased under paragraph (9), the officer or non-commissioned member concerned shall be given the opportunity to object on the grounds that the proposed deduction is unwarranted or excessive.
(4) Where wilfulness is not involved and liability arises under subparagraph (1)(a) or (b) or paragraph (2) of article 38.01 only by reason of negligence on the part of an officer or non-commissioned member:
(a) no administrative deduction shall be imposed if the negligence is of a minor character, being negligence that does not involve recklessness, undue carelessness or intentional commission of a wrongful act or an intentional omission to perform a legal duty; or
(b) where the negligence is not of a minor character, an administrative deduction ordered under paragraph (2) shall not exceed
(i) where the amount involved is $ 25 or less the full amount,
(ii) where the amount involved is more than $ 25 and not more than $ 100, one-half of the amount or $ 25 whichever is the greater,
(iii) where the amount involved is more than $ 100 and not more than $ 300, one-third of the amount or $ 50 whichever is the greater,
(iv) where the amount involved is more than $ 300 and not more than $ 500, one-quarter of the amount or $ 100 whichever is the greater, or
(v) where the amount involved is more than $ 500, one-fifth of the amount or $ 125 whichever is the greater, subject to the limitation that where liability arises out of his negligence in operating a motor vehicle the deduction shall not exceed $ 250.

 

[geo]

I know 1 person who lost one of his mortar gloves.....
The guys in QM gave him a new pair - no fuss, no muss.

 

[kincanucks]

Vern,

Dumb question but what is an entitlement period?

kincanucks

 

[armyvern]

Don't forget that normally you will not be charged the full amount of kit that has been lost.  There is a range of charges based on the dollar value of the item(s) lost -

TRUE, but only in cases where the member does NOT accept responsibility at the outset of the MLR process in section 3.

38.03 is currently under review due to the wide range of interpretations being given to it by COs. It is highly misleading as it is applicable only to those members and MLRs where "DO NOT accept financial responsibility" is filled in at section 3 of the MLR process. It wouldn't be misleading if the CO didn't get these MLRs where the member has already "accepted financial responsibility" given to him needlessly. If a member "accepts" financial responsibility at section 3...the CO should NOT see the MLR. The member has admitted personal negligence and it is therefore 100% deductable immediately (with the exception below of the CTS item that a WO or above must then sign at section 4 before a full 100% deduction is made).

For those MLRs where a member has "not accepted" financial resp at section 3, the CoC becomes involved. If the CO determines any negligence on the part of the member and "recommends" a partial dollar value recovery (because COs can only "recommend" partials); then para 3 of your ref becomes applicable and your member must be given an opportunity to either "Accept" or "Not accept" your "recommendation." If he "accepts" the recovery is then made. If he "does NOT accept" ... the MLR then proceeds further up the CoC to the Comd ... who has the authority to "Order" the deduction made if he sees fit. I have seen COs/Comds decide that the member was fully negligent when they've recd an MLR ... and appropriate charges have been laid. An MLR does NOT preclude disciplinary action from being taken in cases of negligence by any pers in the MLRs CoC with appropriate authority to take such action.

Partial dollar values IAW with delegated authority are only applicable in cases where the member "does not accept financial responsibility" for the loss. If the member admits loss is caused by his own actions and accepts financial responsibility at section 3; then the deduction from the member is 100%. The taxpayer (the Crown) does not (and is not supposed to) partially cover the costs of the loss for any member who has admitted their full personal negligence.

38.03 that is reffed at the top of the MLR must be read in conjunction with the MLR processing procedures. If a member fills out an MLR in which he accepts financially responsibility for the loss, the MLR does NOT (and should not) have to go through his CoC (exception being CTS items where the WO or above must then sign at section 4) before recovery. The next step in the official MLR procedures in this case, is the return to clothing stores by the member with the MLR to receive the replacement item and have payment deducted. The CO should never see these MLRs, as he has no authority to have the Crown cover partial costs for an item recovery in which the member has admitted his own personal full negligence and officially "accepted financial responsibility" for it. If the CO is seeing them, his time is being wasted.

It's easiest to say that as soon as "financial responsibility" has been accepted on the MLR ... then the MLR process ends. If the member accepts at section 3 as being financially responsible for it (like is occurring in the case below) then 100% deduction is applicable immediately and doesn't involve the CO. It's done right at clothing at that point in time and that's where the MLR stops.

If he's not "accepting," then it goes through to the CO and if he "accepts" after the COs recommendation ... the MLR process then stops. If he doesn't .... it then goes further to the Comd ... etc etc

This topic comes up quite often during our WGs in Ottawa, as there are many of CSG supervisors who've had to contact a CO to point out that his 'recommendation of a partial deduction' (ie his investigative finding of partial negligence or partial financial responsibility on the members part) was invalid if the member had already self-admittedly fully "accepted financial responsibility" for the loss at section 3. We encounter this situation most often with Units that have their own RQ shop which carries copies of the MLR. For some reason, they neglect the actual MLR processing steps detailed in the ALM007 and have all MLRs sent the whole way through the CoC to the CO, whether they need to be or not.

The only MLRs that should go further up the CoC after the member inputs his details of loss and acceptance/nonacceptance of loss, are the ones where they are "not accepting financial responsibility" at section 3. If they have accepted financial responsibility, they have admitted 100% negligence in their kit-loss ... and are therefore 100% responsible to cover the costs of replacement themselves ... and should now report direct to clothing stores.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I have never really picked up on the nuance about accepting responsibility before.  Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[catalyst]

i am a numpty and somebody walked away with my cadpat shirt while on course...does anyone know the dollar amount that I will have to pay for a replacement of said shirt?