B-225971, JAN 13, 1987, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-225971, JAN 13, 1987, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

APPROPRIATIONS/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS - CERTIFYING OFFICERS - RELIEF - ILLEGAL/IMPROPER PAYMENTS - SUBSTITUTE CHECKS DIGEST: RELIEF IS GRANTED ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3528 FROM LIABILITY FOR CERTIFICATION OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM INDIVIDUAL PAYEE'S NEGOTIATION OF BOTH ORIGINAL ISSUED ARMY INSTRUMENT AND SUBSTITUTE TREASURY CHECK. THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW AND BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THE PAYEES HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED BOTH CHECKS AND INTENDED TO CASH BOTH PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS. PROPER PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTITUTE CHECKS AND ADEQUATE COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE NOW BEING MADE. HOWEVER, FOR CASES INVOLVING NOTICES OF LOSSES RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 1, 1986, WHERE THE PAYEE HAS LEFT THE ARMY OR ITS EMPLOY, WE WILL DENY RELIEF IF THE FINANCE OFFICER DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN FORWARDING THE DEBT TO ARMY'S COLLECTION DIVISION.

BRIGADIER GENERAL B. W. HALL:

THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR REQUESTS OF DECEMBER 22, 1986, THAT WE RELIEVE COLONEL (COL) H. H. GASSIE, FINANCE CORPS, DSSN 5568, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER, U.S. ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING CENTER, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3528 FOR IMPROPER PAYMENTS TOTALING $1,669.38 CHARGEABLE TO HIS ACCOUNT. FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, RELIEF IS GRANTED.

THE LOSSES IN THIS CASE RESULTED WHEN EACH OF THE PAYEES INVOLVED NEGOTIATED BOTH AN ORIGINAL ARMY-ISSUED CHECK AND A TREASURY-ISSUED REPLACEMENT INSTRUMENT. IN EACH INSTANCE, THE ROLE OF COL GASSIE IN ISSUING THE SECOND CHECK WAS THAT OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL. SEE AR-103, PARA. 4-143(B); SEE ALSO, B-215380, ET AL., JULY 23, 1984.

THIS OFFICE HAS AUTHORITY UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3528 TO RELIEVE A CERTIFYING OFFICER FROM LIABILITY FOR AN ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION IF THE CERTIFICATION WAS BASED ON OFFICIAL RECORDS AND THE OFFICIAL DID NOT KNOW, AND BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED, THE CORRECT INFORMATION. IN ADDITION, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL MAY DENY RELIEF IF HE DETERMINES THAT A DILIGENT EFFORT TO COLLECT THE OVERPAYMENT WAS NOT MADE.

IT APPEARS IN THIS CASE THAT THESE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. AS FAR AS THE ARMY CERTIFYING OFFICIAL WAS CONCERNED, HE "DID NOT KNOW, AND BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND INQUIRY COULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED, THE CORRECT INFORMATION" THAT IS, THAT EACH PAYEE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL CHECK AND HAD-- OR PLANNED TO-- CASH BOTH CHECKS. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT ADEQUATE COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE NOW BEING MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE GRANT RELIEF TO COL GASSIE FOR THE FOLLOWING LOSSES: (TABLE OMITTED)

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE GRANTED RELIEF TO COL GASSIE FOR EACH OF THESE LOSSES, WE NOTE THAT ONLY ONE OF THESE LOSSES WAS REFERRED TO YOUR COLLECTION DIVISION IN A TIMELY MANNER. AS WE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED TO YOU, FOR CASES INVOLVING NOTICES OF LOSSES RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 1, 1986, WHERE THE PAYEE HAS LEFT THE ARMY OR ITS EMPLOY, WE WILL NO LONGER GRANT RELIEF IF THE FINANCE OFFICER DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN FORWARDING THE DEBT TO YOUR COLLECTION DIVISION. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS CASE INVOLVES NOTICES OF LOSSES RECEIVED PRIOR TO THAT DATE, WE WILL NOT DENY RELIEF HERE.