B-201286, MAY 1, 1984, 63 COMP.GEN. 337
Highlights
CHECKS - SUBSTITUTE - REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR STOLEN CHECKS - WAITING PERIOD REQUIREMENT GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AGREES WITH ARMY THAT 3-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF DUPLICATE CHECKS IS SATISFACTORY IN MOST CASES. 1984: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION FOR YOUR POLICY AND ARE IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH IT. OUR COMMENTS AT 62 COMP.GEN. 98 WERE NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTED TOWARD THE DETECTION OF FRAUD. WERE LARGELY THE RESULT OF OUR CONCERN THAT A 3-DAY WAITING PERIOD MAY NOT ALLOW ENOUGH MARGIN FOR POSSIBLE DELAYS IN THE MAIL. WE ARE. WILLING TO ACCEPT YOUR JUDGMENT THAT THE 3-DAY PERIOD IS JUSTIFIED IN MOST CASES DUE TO THE POSSIBLE HARDSHIP TO INDIVIDUALS WHERE PAYMENTS ARE DELAYED.
B-201286, MAY 1, 1984, 63 COMP.GEN. 337
CHECKS - SUBSTITUTE - REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR STOLEN CHECKS - WAITING PERIOD REQUIREMENT GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AGREES WITH ARMY THAT 3-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF DUPLICATE CHECKS IS SATISFACTORY IN MOST CASES. MODIFIES 62 COMP.GEN. 91 (1982) AND 62 COMP.GEN. 476 (1983).
TO THE U.S. ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING CENTER, MAY 1, 1984:
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1983, IN WHICH YOU RESPONDED TO COMMENTS IN OUR DECISION B-201286 (62 COMP.GEN. 91, 97-98 (1982)). IN THAT DECISION WE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERN THAT THE ARMY'S PRACTICE OF REPLACING CHECKS 3 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL DATE OF ISSUANCE DID NOT APPEAR TO US TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME TO JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION THAT THE PAYEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL CHECK. SEE ALSO 62 COMP.GEN. 476, 481 (1983).
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION FOR YOUR POLICY AND ARE IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH IT. OUR COMMENTS AT 62 COMP.GEN. 98 WERE NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTED TOWARD THE DETECTION OF FRAUD, BUT WERE LARGELY THE RESULT OF OUR CONCERN THAT A 3-DAY WAITING PERIOD MAY NOT ALLOW ENOUGH MARGIN FOR POSSIBLE DELAYS IN THE MAIL. AS A RESULT, ALLOWING PAYEES TO CLAIM NONRECEIPT OF THEIR CHECKS 3 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE MAY OFTEN BE PREMATURE. WE ARE, HOWEVER, WILLING TO ACCEPT YOUR JUDGMENT THAT THE 3-DAY PERIOD IS JUSTIFIED IN MOST CASES DUE TO THE POSSIBLE HARDSHIP TO INDIVIDUALS WHERE PAYMENTS ARE DELAYED.
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY, NOR COULD WE AGREE IF YOU DID, THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK 3 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL WILL NEVER BE A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DISBURSING OFFICER HAS EXERCISED DUE CARE IN ISSUING A SUBSTITUTE CHECK. WE BELIEVE ALL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY LEAD ONE TO QUESTION A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF DUE CARE; HOWEVER, WE WILL NOT RAISE A QUESTION IN THE FUTURE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION OF THE 3-DAY WAITING PERIOD BY DISBURSING OFFICERS.
FINALLY, YOU NOTE THAT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, FISCAL SERVICE BULLETIN NO. 82-27, CHANGING VOL. 1 TREASURY FISCAL REQUIREMENTS MANUAL FOR GUIDANCE OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 4-7000, GIVES THE ARMY, ALONG WITH OTHER AGENCIES, DISCRETION IN THE TIMING TO BE USED IN RECERTIFYING PAYMENT WHERE PAYEES HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL CHECK. THIS BULLETIN, HOWEVER, CONCERNS THE RECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH PERMITS PAYMENT BY A SECOND CHECK BEARING A DIFFERENT SERIAL NUMBER. AS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN BULLETIN NO. 83-17, SUBSTITUTE CHECK PROCEDURES COVERING CHECKS BEARING THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER REMAIN UNCHANGED. ARMY REGULATIONS ONLY AUTHORIZE ARMY DISBURSING OFFICERS TO ISSUE SUBSTITUTE CHECKS. AR 37-103, PARAGRAPH 4-160. ACCORDINGLY, THE POLICY DECISION ON TIMING OF RECERTIFICATION DELEGATED TO THE ARMY HAS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUBSTITUTE CHECK CASES WHERE WE HAVE QUESTIONED THE 3-DAY PRACTICE.