B-215170, JUL 18, 1984
Highlights
ETC. - RELIEF DENIED DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF ARMY DISBURSING OFFICER UNDER 31 U.S.C. 3527 (C) FROM LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER PAYMENT RESULTING FROM PAYEE'S NEGOTIATION OF BOTH ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE MILITARY CHECKS IS DENIED. A CLAIM OF NON-RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CHECK ONLY 2 DAYS AFTER IT WAS ISSUED REQUIRES MORE JUSTIFICATION THAN PRESENTED. THAT IS CHARGED TO HIS ACCOUNT. RELIEF IS DENIED. BOTH CHECKS WERE IN THE SAME AMOUNT. THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYEE'S ALLEGATION THAT SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL CHECK AND HER REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT. SEC. 3527(C) TO RELIEVE A DISBURSING OFFICER FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFICIENCY RESULTING FROM AN IMPROPER PAYMENT UPON DETERMINING "THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF BAD FAITH OR LACK OF REASONABLE CARE BY THE OFFICIAL.".
B-215170, JUL 18, 1984
DISBURSING OFFICERS - LACK OF DUE CARE, ETC. - RELIEF DENIED DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF ARMY DISBURSING OFFICER UNDER 31 U.S.C. 3527 (C) FROM LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER PAYMENT RESULTING FROM PAYEE'S NEGOTIATION OF BOTH ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE MILITARY CHECKS IS DENIED. ALTHOUGH OFFICER ACTED WITHIN BOUNDS OF ARMY REGULATIONS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK, A CLAIM OF NON-RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CHECK ONLY 2 DAYS AFTER IT WAS ISSUED REQUIRES MORE JUSTIFICATION THAN PRESENTED.
MR. CLYDE E. JEFFCOAT: PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMANDER U.S. ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING CENTER INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46249
DEAR MR. JEFFCOAT:
THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR REQUEST THAT WE RELIEVE MAJOR R. F. HAWLEY UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527 (C) FOR AN IMPROPER PAYMENT OF A $194.36 CHECK PAYABLE TO MS. YVETTE L. MASSEY, THAT IS CHARGED TO HIS ACCOUNT. FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, RELIEF IS DENIED.
THE LOSS RESULTED WHEN THE PAYEE NEGOTIATED BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND A SUBSTITUTE CHECK. BOTH CHECKS WERE IN THE SAME AMOUNT. THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYEE'S ALLEGATION THAT SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL CHECK AND HER REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT.
THIS OFFICE HAS AUTHORITY UNDER 31 U.S.C. SEC. 3527(C) TO RELIEVE A DISBURSING OFFICER FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFICIENCY RESULTING FROM AN IMPROPER PAYMENT UPON DETERMINING "THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF BAD FAITH OR LACK OF REASONABLE CARE BY THE OFFICIAL." WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT IN "DUPLICATE CHECK" CASES, SUCH AS THIS, THE IMPROPER PAYMENT "IS TOTALLY BEYOND THE RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL OF THE AGENCY DISBURSING OFFICER AND IS SOMETHING FOR WHICH HE SHOULD INCUR NO LIABILITY." COMP.GEN. 91, 94 (1982). RELIEF IS GRANTED WHEN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICER ACTED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DUE CARE AS ESTABLISHED BY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER, AND THAT A DILIGENT EFFORT WAS MADE TO COLLECT THE OVERPAYMENT. 62 COMP.GEN. 91, ID.
IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK IN THIS CASE WERE LITERALLY WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS (15 DAYS) ESTABLISHED BY ARMY REGULATIONS. SEE AR 37-103, PARAGRAPHS, 4 162 AND 4-164.
HOWEVER, THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS ISSUED 2 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL. HAS BEEN NOTED BEFORE, WE HAVE SOME CONCERN OVER THE ISSUANCE OF SUBSTITUTE CHECKS WHEN THERE IS LESS THAN A 3-DAY INTERVAL BETWEEN THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL CHECK AND THE SUBSTITUTE. IN OUR LETTER TO YOU OF JULY 2, 1984, WE EXPLAINED THAT, ABSENT OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION, AN INTERVAL OF LESS THAN 3 DAYS COULD NOT SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICER HAD USED REASONABLE CARE. SEE B-215433; B-215515, JULY 2, 1984, AND B-201286, MAY 1, 1984. FURTHERMORE, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU YOURSELF DO NOT ENDORSE A SHORTER INTERVAL THAN 3 DAYS. ID. IN THIS CASE, THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN YOUR REQUEST DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE TO ACCEPT A CLAIM OF NON-RECEIPT 2 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL CHECK WAS ISSUED. UNTIL THIS IS EXPLAINED, WE MUST DENY RELIEF.