Skip to main content

B-176402, MAR 29, 1973

B-176402 Mar 29, 1973
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

CLAIMANT'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE OVERPAYMENT UNTIL NOTIFIED TO REPAY THE AMOUNT IS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING CLAIMANT'S DISCOVERY OF THE OVERPAYMENT PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION. THE FACT THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE BEEN GRANTED WAIVERS OF INDEBTEDNESS. ASKING RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER B-176402. THAT YOU DID NOT BRING THE OVERPAYMENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PAYROLL OFFICE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE OVERPAYMENT UNTIL AUGUST 11. WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED BY THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO REPAY THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. YOU ADD THAT YOUR CASE WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CASES OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO SIMILARLY WERE OVERPAID BUT WHOSE OVERPAYMENTS YOU INDICATE WERE WAIVED.

View Decision

B-176402, MAR 29, 1973

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - OVERPAYMENTS - AWARENESS OF ERROR DECISION SUSTAINING THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF A REQUEST BY THEODORE KAMADULSKI FOR A WAIVER OF INDEBTEDNESS INCIDENT TO ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION. CLAIMANT'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE OVERPAYMENT UNTIL NOTIFIED TO REPAY THE AMOUNT IS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING CLAIMANT'S DISCOVERY OF THE OVERPAYMENT PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION. MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE BEEN GRANTED WAIVERS OF INDEBTEDNESS, PRESUMABLY FOR BONA FIDE UNAWARENESS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR WAIVER IN THE INSTANT CASE.

TO MR. THEODORE KAMADULSKI:

WE MAKE FURTHER REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 26, 1972, ASKING RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER B-176402, SEPTEMBER 19, 1972. YOU CONTEND, CONTRARY TO OUR STATEMENT IN THAT LETTER, THAT YOU DID NOT BRING THE OVERPAYMENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PAYROLL OFFICE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE OVERPAYMENT UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1967, WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED BY THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO REPAY THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. YOU ADD THAT YOUR CASE WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CASES OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO SIMILARLY WERE OVERPAID BUT WHOSE OVERPAYMENTS YOU INDICATE WERE WAIVED.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS FORWARDED THIS OFFICE A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED AUGUST 10, 1967, ADDRESSED TO MR. WILLIAM BARKER, COMPTROLLER OF THE GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT. THAT LETTER, WRITTEN THE DAY BEFORE YOU ALLEGE TO HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE OVERPAYMENT, STATES THAT THE ERROR WAS DISCOVERED WHEN YOU AND MR. JOHN M. WIDEMAN CAME TO THE PAYROLL OFFICE TO HAVE YOUR COMPUTATIONS OF PAY CHECKED. IN VIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AMOUNT OF PAY WHICH YOU HAD RECEIVED.

THE AUGUST 10, 1967 LETTER DOES CONFIRM THAT A TOTAL OF 10 EMPLOYEES RECEIVED OVERPAYMENTS SUCH AS YOURS. THE SUCCESSOR TO THE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GRANITE CITY ARMY DEPOT, HOWEVER, HAS NO RECORD OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE OVERPAID OR OF WAIVERS BEING GRANTED IN ANY OF THOSE CASES. WHETHER THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE GRANTED WAIVERS DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDE ANY BASIS FOR WAIVER IN YOUR CASE. IT MAY BE THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE NOT AWARE THAT THEY HAD BEEN OVERPAID.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE DENIAL OF YOUR REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE INDEBTEDNESS IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs