B-188413 June 30, 1977

B-188413 June 30, 1977

Mr. Conrad R. Hoffman Controller Veterans Administration Washington, D.C. 20420

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

This is in response to your request forwarded to us by J.C. Abbott, chief Disbursing Officer, Department of the Treasury, requesting that relief be granted in the amount of $2,357.64 on behalf of Mr. John Morgerson, Special Messenger, veterans Administration hospital, Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Moregerson was on his way to deliver the money, received from Ms. Doris Joseph, Class B Cashier, to a sub-cashier, when it disappeared from the locked trunk of his Government vehicle.

Mr. Abbott's letter refers to your letter as requesting relief for Doris Joseph, the Class B Cashier "to cover a shortage in the advance account of the Class-B-Cashier, Ms. Doris Joseph." However, according to the Hospital Director's report on the loss, Mr. Morgerson signed a log book and a VA4-1011 Record of Shipment of Valuables form when he picked up the money from the Class B Cashier. We assume, based on this, that the funds in the Class B Cashier's account are properly accounted for, and that, as the Hospital Director's report indicates, relief is being requested for the messenger, Mr. Morgerson, who in the course of his official duties had custody of the funds where such funds diappeared.

Relief of an accountable officer from liability for a physical loss of funds may be granted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) only in accordance with 31 U.S.C. Sec. 82a-1 (1970) which requires, as a prerequisite to granting such relief, a determination by the head of the department:

"* * * (1) that such loss or deficiency occurred while such officer or agent was acting in the discharge of his official duties, or that such loss or deficiency occurred by reason of the act or omission of a subordinate of such officer or agent; and (2) that such loss or deficiency occurred without fault or negligence on the part of such officer or agent. * * *" (Emphasis added.)

In this case, there has been no such determination by the head of the agency. The determination by the Hospital Director which you cite does not satisfy the statutory requirement. GAO has no authority to grant relief in the absence of such a determination, regardless of the merits of the case.

In addition, concurrence by this Office is also a prerequisite to the granting of relief under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 82a-1:

"The General Accounting Office is authorized, after consideration of the pertinent findings and if in concurrence with the determinations and recommendations of the head of the department or independent establishment concerned, to relieve any disbursing or other accountable officer or agent or former disbursing or other accountable officer or agent of any such department or independent establishment of the Government charged with responsibility on account of physical loss or deficiency of Government funds, vouchers, records, checks, securities, or papers in his charge. * * *"

On the record before us, we could not concur in a determination that relief should be granted, even if the Administrator had made the requisite finding.

The record, discloses that the Special Messenger (who also was the vehicle driver), Mr. Morgerson, received from the cashier and signed for a locked brown cloth pouch containing $2,357.64. Mr. Morgerson states he placed the pouch in the trunk of the vehicle with the mail and locked the trunk lid. He made mail deliveries at two buildings, leaving the car to do so. After leaving the second building and while Mr. Morgerson was driving to the third building he noticed the trunk lid fly open. He immediately stopped the car and closed the trunk but did not check to see whether the money pouch was missing. He made one other stop (third building)-- apparently to pick up and/or deliver mail--before arriving at the building (fourth building) where the money pouch was to be delivered.

The record is silent as to whether Mr. Morgerson opened the trunk when he made his third mail stop but presumably he did. When Mr. Morgerson opened the trunk at the fourth mail stop to deliver the money pouch he discovered that the pouch was missing.

From the foregoing it would appear that Mr. Morgerson failed to lock the trunk securely when he delivered mail at the second building at which he stopped. In other words, it appears that when getting the mail ot of the trunk at the second stop he failed to lock the trunk securely before going into the building to deliver the mail. This seems apparent since the trunk lid flew open while he was driving the vehicle between his second and third stops and there is no evidence in the record of forceable entry into the trunk.

You advise procedures for controlling transport of funds have since been effected which should preclude a recurrence of an incident of this nature in the future. The new procedures provide for hospital police escort service and no intermediate steps when cashis carried and further that the cash is to be kept in the possession of the Special Messenger and not transported in the trunk.

The new procedure would, no doubt, preclude an incident of this nature in the future. However, the fact that new procedures may be more effective in preventing losses than the procedures in effect at the time a loss was sustained is not necessarily a basis for relieving an accountable officer. It appears from the record that in the instant ease Mr. Morgerson was negligent in not locking the trunk lid securely when he obtained the mail from the trunk to make the delivery at the second stop. Thus, it does not appear that a finding could be made that the loss occurred without fault or negligence on the part of Mr. Morgerson.

Also, apart from the question of negligence, our Office has consistently held that the mere fact that an unexplained shortage of public funds occurred in, in and of itself, sufficient to raise an inference or presumption of negligence. The burden of rebutting this resumption rests on the responsible official. 48 Comp. Gen. 566 (1969); 54 id. 1112 (1974). Except for the facts set forth above the record submitted to us lacks any specific information as to how the loss occurred, for example, whether there was evidence that the trunk was broken into, which would rebut the presumption.

Since the statutory requirements are not met in this instance, this matter may not properly be considered by our Office, and the request for relief for Mr. Morgerson must be denied.

Sincerely yours,

Paul G. Dembling General Cousel