B-221398, SEP 19, 1986

B-221398, SEP 19, 1986

DISBURSING OFFICERS - RELIEF - ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS - NOT RESULT OF BAD FAITH OR NEGLIGENCE DIGEST: RELIEF IS GRANTED ARMY DISBURSING OFFICIAL UNDER 31 U.S.C. SECTION 3527(C) FROM LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER PAYMENT RESULTING FROM PAYEE'S NEGOTIATION OF BOTH ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE MILITARY CHECKS. PROPER PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK, THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE DISBURSING OFFICIAL AND SUBSEQUENT COLLECTION ATTEMPTS ARE BEING PURSUED. HOWEVER, FOR LOSSES RECORDED AFTER JUNE 1, 1986, WE WILL DENY RELIEF IF ARMY DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN FORWARDING THE DEBT TO ITS COLLECTION DIVISION. WE, ALSO, RECOMMEND THAT ARMY DEVELOP GUIDELINES TO DEAL WITH PAYEES THAT MAKE MULTIPLE CLAIMS OF NON-RECEIPT OF PAY CHECKS WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

MR. CLYDE E. JEFFCOAT:

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMANDER

U.S. ARMY FINANCE AND

ACCOUNTING CENTER

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46249

THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR REQUEST OF MAY 13, 1986, THAT WE RELIEVE LIEUTENANT COLONEL (LTC) W. H. HILL, DSSN 6341, FINANCE CORPS, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER, III CORPS AND FORT HOOD, FORT HOOD, TEXAS, UNDER 31 U.S.C. SECTION 3527(C) FOR AN IMPROPER PAYMENT OF A $216.52 CHECK PAYABLE TO MR. EARNEST L. ADAMS. FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, RELIEF IS GRANTED.

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 THE ORIGINAL CHECK HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND A REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE. BOTH CHECKS WERE ISSUED BY THE ARMY UNDER AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. 31 C.F.R. SECTION 245.8.

IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUEST FOR STOP PAYMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK IN THIS CASE WERE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DUE CARE AS ESTABLISHED BY ARMY REGULATIONS. SEE AR 37-103, PARAS. 4-161, 4-162 AND 4 -164. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER AND IT APPEARS THAT ADEQUATE COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE NOW BEING MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE GRANT RELIEF.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE GRANTED RELIEF TO THE DISBURSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ARMY'S COLLECTION PROCEDURES, TAKEN TOGETHER, MEET THE DILIGENT CLAIMS COLLECTION REQUIREMENT OF 31 U.S.C. SECTION 3527(C). ONCE THE DEBIT VOUCHER WAS RECEIVED FROM TREASURY, IT TOOK ARMY OVER 18 MONTHS TO REFER THE MATTER TO YOUR COLLECTION DIVISION. AS WE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED TO YOU, FOR LOSSES RECORDED AFTER JUNE 1, 1986, WHERE THE PAYEE HAS LEFT THE ARMY OR ITS EMPLOY, WE WILL NO LONGER GRANT RELIEF IF ARMY DELAYS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS IN FORWARDING THE DEBT TO YOUR COLLECTION DIVISION. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS CASE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THAT DATE, WE WILL NOT DENY RELIEF HERE.

FINALLY, A REVIEW OF OUR RECORDS INDICATES THAT WE HAVE RELIEVED LTC HILL AND HIS DEPUTY FOR TWO OTHER DUPLICATE CHECK PAYMENTS TO MR. ADAMS. B-221398, MAY 1, 1986 AND DECEMBER 30, 1985. IT APPEARS THAT WITHIN 11 MONTHS, MR. ADAMS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED THREE DUPLICATE PAYMENTS TOTALLING $609.74. AS RECENTLY STATED IN B-220500, SEPTEMBER 12, 1986, WE THINK THAT ARMY SHOULD DEVELOP GUIDELINES TO DEAL WITH PAYEES THAT MAKE MULTIPLE CLAIMS OF NONRECEIPT OF PAY CHECKS WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. IT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL TO US, WHEN POSSIBLE, IF REQUESTS FOR RELIEF INVOLVING THE SAME PAYEE WERE PROCESSED TOGETHER. HERE, TWO OF THE DOUBLE PAYMENT CASES WERE REFERRED TO USAFAC ON THE SAME DAY. NEVERTHELESS, WE RECEIVED THEM A MONTH APART.