DECEMBER 10, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 358

DECEMBER 10, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 358

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS OF NAVAL OFFICERS - LIABILITY OF DISBURSING OFFICERS AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FOR EITHER HIMSELF OR HIS DEPENDENTS UPON PERMISSABLE CHANGE OF STATION OR TO HIS HOME UPON THE TERMINATION OF A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT. DISBURSING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY MAKING PAYMENT TO CARRIERS UPON TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS, REGULAR UPON THEIR FACE BUT FOR TRAVEL UNAUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE THEREFOR UNLESS AND UNTIL RECOVERY IS MADE FROM THE PERSONS BENEFITING BY THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS. THE ERRONEOUS ISSUE OF SUCH REQUESTS IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DECEMBER 10, 1923:

THERE IS BEFORE THIS OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PAYMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON REQUESTS REGULAR ON THEIR FACE BUT UNLAWFULLY EXECUTED BY NAVAL OFFICERS, BASED ON CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS, IN FAVOR OF OFFICERS OR THEIR DEPENDENTS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TRANSPORTATION. THE MATTER INVOLVES REFUSAL OF DISBURSING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY WHO PAID THE CARRIERS TO CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH REQUESTING REFUND OF THE AMOUNT CHARGED THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION FROM THE PERSON RECEIVING THE BENEFITS THEREOF.

ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO TWO CASES IN PARTICULAR AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SITUATION DISCLOSED. ONE FOR TRANSPORTATION PAID BY A NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER TO THE WIFE OF LIEUT. SAMUEL B. BREWER, UNDER ORDERS DATED JUNE 22, 1922, DETACHING HIM FROM DUTY ON BOARD THE U.S.S. BLAKELEY, GRANTING LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR 10 DAYS, AND UPON EXPIRATION THEREOF DIRECTING HIM TO REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER, U.S.S. MEXICO, FOR DUTY ON BOARD THAT VESSEL. ORDER PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

4. ALL TRAVEL PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE MUST BE WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

5. IN CASE YOU DO NOT DESIRE TO BEAR THIS EXPENSE YOU WILL CONSIDER THIS AUTHORIZATION AS REVOKED AND RETURN THIS LETTER TO THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION FOR CANCELLATION.

THIS ORDER WAS CONSTRUED BY THE NAVY OFFICER HAVING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS FOR THE TRAVEL INVOLVED AS ENTITLING THE OFFICER TO TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, ALTHOUGH HE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY FOR HIS OWN TRANSPORTATION. THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS UPHELD BY THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, JULY 5, 1923. THE CONSTRUCTION APPEARS UNREASONABLE. THE CHANGE OF STATION WAS WHAT MAY BE TERMED PERMISSIBLE AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE ORDER SUCH AS IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT., 604, CONTROLLING THE PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS. THE SAME REASONS FOR REQUIRING THE OFFICER TO PAY HIS OWN TRANSPORTATION WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS. THE DEPENDENTS COULD ACQUIRE NO RIGHT TO TRAVEL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER TO THE OFFICER TO TRAVEL, AND THAT CLEARLY STIPULATED IN PARAGRAPH 4 THAT THERE WAS TO BE NO EXPENSE TO THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE OFFICER'S DEPENDENTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. 3 COMP. GEN., 25. THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THE WIFE OF THE OFFICER WAS FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO SEATTLE, WASH., AT A TOTAL EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $150.59, WHICH IS NOW DUE THE GOVERNMENT, IN SO FAR AS RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE DISCLOSE.

THE OTHER CASE INVOLVES AN AMOUNT PAID BY A NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED THE WIFE AND SON OF ENSIGN FRANK R. BROOKS UNDER ORDERS DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1921, DETACHING HIM FROM DUTY ON BOARD THE RECEIVING SHIP AT NEW YORK AND DIRECTING HIM TO PROCEED TO HIS HOME, MUNCIE, IND., TO AWAIT ORDERS. THE SAME ORDER REVOKED HIS TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1921. THE CONTROLLING STATUTE ABOVE CITED PROVIDES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF OFFICERS ORDERED TO CHANGE STATIONS. AN OFFICER'S HOME IS NOT A STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE DEPENDENTS IN THIS CASE WAS UNAUTHORIZED. 27 COMP. DEC., 61, 391. THE TRAVEL PERFORMED WAS FROM BOSTON, MASS., TO MUNCIE, IND., AT A TOTAL EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $47.61, WHICH IS NOW DUE THE GOVERNMENT IN SO FAR AS RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE DISCLOSE. IT IS NOTED THAT EVEN HAD THE TRANSPORTATION BEEN OTHERWISE PROPER, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT AUTHORITY THERE EXISTED FOR PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM BOSTON TO NEW YORK, THE LATTER PLACE BEING THE OFFICER'S LAST DUTY STATION.

THE NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER WAS REQUESTED IN EACH OF THESE CASES TO ADVISE WHETHER ANY REQUEST FOR REFUND HAD BEEN MADE AND, IF NOT, THE REASON THEREFOR. IN REPLY THE DISBURSING OFFICER, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, IN THE CASE OF ENSIGN BROOKS, STATED AS OLLOWS:

IN MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES CALLED FOR ON ABOVE REQUESTS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT COLLECTIONS HAD BEEN MADE, AS THE CARRIERS CONCERNED WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES THEY FURNISHED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE REQUESTS CONCERNED, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION.

THIS INFORMATION WAS, THEREFORE, NOT SOUGHT, AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE COLLECTION MENTIONED IN REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE.

A SIMILAR LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT BREWER.

THIS SUBMISSION INDICATES, FIRST, A CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE OFFICERS OF THE NAVY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS IN PROPERLY DETERMINING THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON SEEKING TRANSPORTATION; AND SECOND, AN ATTITUDE OF UNCONCERN ON THE PART OF DISBURSING OFFICERS OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IN AFFORDING ANY ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY A NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1923, EFFECTIVE DATE OF GENERAL REGULATIONS NO. 13, DIRECTING DISCONTINUANCE OF PAYMENTS BY DISBURSING OFFICERS TO CARRIERS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND PROVIDING FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT BY THIS OFFICE. THE DISBURSING OFFICER WAS AT THAT TIME AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO CARRIERS, BUT BASED ONLY ON A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST REGULAR ON ITS FACE AND IN PROPER FORM. THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO PAYMENT BASED UPON THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST DOES NOT, HOWEVER, RELIEVE A DISBURSING OFFICER FOR PAYMENTS DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL. UNDER THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING IN FORCE, THE PERSON MAKING THE DISBURSEMENT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ILLEGAL PAYMENT. THE ERROR OF THE OFFICER ISSUING THE REQUEST IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION LOOKING TO CORRECTION OF AN INTOLERABLE SITUATION, BY THE LIQUIDATION OF INDEBTEDNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF THE ILLEGAL PAYMENT IS DIRECTLY A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER UNDER HIS BOND.

ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNTS OF ALL UNLAWFUL PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION MADE BY NAVY DISBURSING OFFICERS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1923, ALSO THOSE MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE, THROUGH ERROR OR DISREGARD OF GENERAL REGULATIONS NO. 13, WILL BE CHARGED AGAINST THE DISBURSING OFFICER MAKING THE PAYMENT, TO BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER DISALLOWANCES. A CHARGE WILL ALSO BE RAISED AGAINST THE ONE ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THERE WAS RECEIVED THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION FOR COLLECTION AS IN OTHER CASES.