B-240281, Aug 31, 1990,
Highlights
He requests waiver of the expenses he incurred that exceeds the amount advanced and for which there is no statutory entitlement. Since there is no debt owed to the United States as a result of his out-of-pocket expenses. Waiver may be granted where an employee is indebted to the United States due to an erroneous payment. Waiver was properly granted to the extent of the advanced per diem of $10. Slichter was indebted to the United States for the amount erroneously advanced. Since there was no erroneous payment underlying that amount. There is no authority to use waiver as a means of allowing Mr.
B-240281, Aug 31, 1990,
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Travel - Advances - Overpayments - Debt collection - Waiver DIGEST: Our Claims Group granted waiver to an Army employee for the amount erroneously advanced to him for per diem. He requests waiver of the expenses he incurred that exceeds the amount advanced and for which there is no statutory entitlement. Since there is no debt owed to the United States as a result of his out-of-pocket expenses, waiver cannot be used as authority to reimburse him for the amount spent in excess of the erroneous travel advance.
Richard E. Slichter:
Mr. Richard E. Slichter appeals our Claims Group's settlement /1/ of his claim for waiver of the amount he spent in reliance on an erroneous authorization of per diem in connection with a temporary duty assignment. The Claims Group granted waiver to Mr. Slichter to the extent of the advanced per diem of $10,860, although he requested waiver of $11,795.90, the amount of expenses he actually incurred. Mr. Slichter believes he should be reimbursed for the difference of $935.90.
Under the authority and conditions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584 (1988), waiver may be granted where an employee is indebted to the United States due to an erroneous payment. In this case, waiver was properly granted to the extent of the advanced per diem of $10,860, since, in the absence of an entitlement to per diem, Mr. Slichter was indebted to the United States for the amount erroneously advanced. However, the United States has no claim against Mr. Slichter for his out-of-pocket expenses ($935.90) which exceeded the amount of the advance, since there was no erroneous payment underlying that amount. As a result, there is no authority to use waiver as a means of allowing Mr. Slichter's claim for reimbursement. Rebecca T. Zagriniski, 66 Comp.Gen. 642 (1987). See also Rajindar N. Khanna, 67 Comp.Gen. 493 (1988).
Accordingly, in the absence of a statutory entitlement to the amount claimed, we sustain our Claims Group's settlement denying reimbursement of the amount spent in excess of the travel advance.