why not to charged a soldier for lost and damaged gear?

Question

I need a big respone if you can but a short respone is ok too.

Answer 1

Decisions on this sort of thing are made on a case-by-case basis. Generally if the dollar cost of lost or damaged government exceeds a certain value a process called a 'Report of Survey' is begun. In this a disinterested senior NCO or officer (usually from a similar unit) will be assigned to investigate the circumstances of the loss and determine if and how much any person should be held liable.

If their opinion of the survey officer is that the loss was not due to misconduct or negligence - then the US government absorbs the cost of the loss. If the survey concludes that the loss was the result of either negligence or misconduct then the person responsible for the loss is financially liable for the loss (up to a maximum dollar amount equal to one months pay).

The most common reasons for which the servicemember is considered to be not at fault:

1) 'Fair wear and tear' - If a soldier is issued an item with an expected life expectancy of two years and at the end of that time it is worn to the point of unusability then the soldier is off the hook.

2) Hostile action - if the enemy damages it you are no liable.

3) Emergency - if the property was lost under conditions where the soldier responsible was unable to care for it (such as what happens when a soldier is wounded and evacuated to a hospital)

4) Any other circumstance judged as beyond the soldier's control.

Note: that if a soldier is not permitted to take an item of equipment home and does so anyway - any loss is his responsibility no matter what the reason. In addition a soldier is expected to take reasonable precautions to secure government property from theft or loss.

Answer 2

You need to clarify more specifics to better understand what you are looking for in your responses. Like how lost? How and when damaged?

For lost items(issued apparatuses) the Military have taken stricter measures on control of the issuance and return of sidearms, rifles, and other combat equipment. This action followed after the Vietnam era, where a lot of soldiers brought back with them to the US, a cache of different weapons following the war.

As for as damaged items any service personnel in the war fields are not required to pay for any damage equipment monetarily, but does have repercussions by their superiors. Unless someone has maliciously, intentionally, and knowingly damaged such said item it could be different.

Answer 3

In some cases they do. It depends on whether the military believes the soldier to be negligent. Did he simply misplace his 14th pair of boots again? They'll probably charge him. Did he abandon his gear in an emergency to save time? They'll likely just reissue.

Answer 4

Because it is a war some and it is full of smoke, noise and confusion, not to mention chaos...Mostr people lose something and experinec none of that. Also, would you have to pay for a tool you lost at your job? No...its against the law.

Answer 5

It's a war. Things get broken and lost. When you're getting shot at, you don't have time to inventory your stuff. You just grab your gun and try to kill them before they kill you. Equipment breaks down, weapons get damaged, supplies go where they aren't needed, sheit happens. War is hell right up in your face.

Answer 6

Not sure what the question is, as it is poorly phrased. If you are asking why don't they charge for lost or stolen gear...they do!

Answer 7

there gear is giving to them from the start. because his gear is apart of his job. so it's replaced. just like any other job that stuff is givin to you to use. they replace it. and they know it's going to get damaged and lost just apart of the job.

Answer 8

What nation's military are you in?

Answer 9

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

Answer 10

Please rephrase the question so that it is understandable. Are you one of Kerry's Whiz Kids?