Certification of Defense Intelligence Agency Emergency and Extraordinary Expense Vouchers B-251905 July 2, 1993 72 Comp.Gen. 279

Certification of Defense Intelligence Agency Emergency and Extraordinary Expense Vouchers B-251905 July 2, 1993 72 Comp.Gen. 279

Appropriations/Financial Management Accountable Officers Certifying officers Liability Vouchers Emergencies A State Department certifying officer could have certified an emergency or extraordinary expense voucher, submitted by a Defense Attache, even though the certifying officer was not allowed to view the classified supporting documentation. Under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 127, a certification by the Secretary of Defense or a designee as to the confidentiality of an emergency or extraordinary expense "is sufficient voucher for the expenditure of that amount." The certifying officer, as part of the later administrative processing of the voucher, is responsible only for errors made in his own processing of the voucher, and not for the Defense Attache's prior certification as to the propriety of the payment.

DECISION The principal certifying officer at the United States Embassy, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, questions whether he could have certified an emergency or extraordinary expense voucher that, because of security considerations, was not accompanied by supporting documentation. For the reasons indicated below, the certifying officer was responsible only for errors in his own processing of the voucher, not for the underlying propriety of the certification, and thus, could have certified the voucher in question.

BACKGROUND

The Embassy in Port-au-Prince renders fiscal services to the Defense Intelligence Agency under the terms of a Foreign Affairs Administrative Service Agreement.[1] On August 3, 1992, the Defense Attache submitted a voucher for unspecified emergency or extraordinary expenses in the amount of $239.10. The Defense Attache did not provide supporting documentation to the certifying officer, claiming that the security classification of the voucher attachments exceeded the security clearance of the certifying officer. The Defense Attache asserted that the Department of State requires certification in these cases and that 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140 allowed him to submit the voucher without supporting documentation.

The Embassy's principal certifying officer refused to certify the voucher and forwarded through departmental channels a request to the Comptroller General for an advance decision.[2] The Department of State declined to forward the certifying officer's request for an advance decision to us. Citing 55 Comp.Gen. 388 and B-142380, Mar. 30, 1960, the State Department maintains that its certifying officers may certify vouchers based on a Defense Attache's signature only. Furthermore, the State Department claims that a Defense Attache, acting under the authority of title 10 of the United States Code, can authorize the expenditure of funds for any emergency and extraordinary expense purpose he or she determines to be proper and such a determination is final and conclusive upon the accounting officer. Accordingly, the State Department takes the position that a certifying officer is not certifying that the payment is legal, proper and correct; rather, he or she is certifying only that the expense is being charged to the emergency and extraordinary expense appropriation and that funds for such purpose are available to the Defense Attache for that fiscal year.

The certifying officer in the present case questions whether State Department certifying officers are relieved of certifying the legality and correctness of emergency and extraordinary expense vouchers and, as is his statutory right, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3529(a)(1988), requests our decision. Although the submission indicates that an alternate certifying officer eventually certified the voucher at issue, we will nonetheless render a decision because of the potentially wide applicability of this question.

ANALYSIS

Generally, a certifying official is responsible for the existence and correctness of the facts cited in the certificate, voucher, or supporting papers and the legality of the proposed payment, and is liable for the amount of any illegal, improper, or incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certificate made by him, as well as for any payment prohibited by law or which does not represent a legal obligation. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3528 (1988). In those cases where there is more than one certification,[3] we have observed that:

"Where the certifying officer who certifies the voucher and schedule of payments is different from the certifying officer who certifies the basic vouchers, we have consistently applied the principle that the certifying officer who certifies the basic vouchers is responsible for the correctness of such vouchers and the certifying officer who certifies the voucher-schedule is responsible only for errors made in the preparation of the voucher-schedule. . . ."

B-142380, Mar. 30, 1960. Thus, in situations involving successive certifications, the official making the second certification is entitled to rely upon the first certification for the purpose of determining liability and the second official is to be held accountable only for the correctness of the voucher schedule he or she certifies. See also 55 Comp. Gen. 388, 390.

The Voucher For Emergency or Extraordinary Expense Expenditures, DD Form 281 (E&E Voucher),[4] requires the payee (the Defense Attache in this case) to certify "that the above account is true and correct . . . and that the amount has been or will be expended for emergency or extraordinary expense purposes." The form then provides a space for the certifying officer to "certify that the above listed expenditures are properly chargeable to the appropriations indicated." Lastly, the form provides a space for approval by the head of the Department.

The particular concern expressed by the certifying officer in the present case is whether the State Department official certifying the E&E voucher after certification by the Defense Attache may question the propriety of the Defense Attache's certification. The question stems from the E&E Voucher's requirement that the State Department certifying official certify that the vouched expenditures are "properly chargeable" to the appropriation indicated.

In our opinion, because the voucher is for an emergency or extraordinary expense, the certifying officer may not question the propriety of the original certification. The emergency and extraordinary expenses provision of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140, referred to in the submission, was redesignated 10 U.S.C. Sec. 127 (1988) by Pub. L. No. 99-433, Sec. 101(a)(3), 100 Stat. 994 (1986). Section 127 of title 10, United States Code, provides as follows:

"(a) Subject to the limitation of subsection (c), and within the limitation of appropriations made for the purpose, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of a military department within his department, may provide for any emergency or extraordinary expense which cannot be anticipated or classified. When it is so provided in such an appropriation, the funds may be spent on approval or authority of the Secretary concerned for any purpose he determines to be proper, and such a determination is final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States. The Secretary concerned may certify the amount of any such expenditure authorized by him that he considers advisable not to specify, and his certificate is sufficient voucher for the expenditure of that amount.

"(b) The authority conferred by this section may be delegated by the Secretary of Defense to any person in the Department of Defense or by the Secretary of a military department to any person within his department, with or without the authority to make successive redelegations.

"(c) In any case in which funds are expended under the authority of subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report of such expenditures on a quarterly basis to the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives."

The Defense Agencies' Operation and Maintenance appropriation for fiscal year 1992 provides:

"For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments), as authorized by law; $16,408,161,000 . . . of which not to exceed $15,743,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: * * *" Pub. L. No. 102-172, 105 Stat. 1155 (1991).

Reading these provisions together, the Secretary of Defense, or a designee, is authorized to make expenditures on the Secretary's certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes for any emergency or extraordinary expense the Secretary determines to be proper, and the Secretary's determination of propriety is final and conclusive on this Office.[5] Since the Defense Attache is certifying that the amount claimed in the voucher is for emergency or extraordinary purposes, and if he provides the proper certification of the confidential nature of the expense, the State Department certifying officer is only certifying that the expense is being charged to the emergency and extraordinary expense appropriation for which funds have been provided to the Defense Attache for that fiscal year. The State Department certifying officer, as part of the subsequent administrative processing of the voucher, is responsible only for errors made in his own processing of the voucher, which we have held does not amount to certification for purposes of 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3528. 55 Comp.Gen. 388. Consequently, the State Department certifying officer could have certified the emergency and extraordinary expense voucher, despite the lack of supporting documentation.

1. We have previously approved similar types of interagency servicing arrangements under the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1535. See, e.g., 55 Comp.Gen. 388 (1975); 59 Comp.Gen. 471 (1980); B-205616, July 16, 1982.

2. An alternate certifying officer at the Embassy certified the voucher in mid-September 1992.

3. Where an authorized certifying officer certifies a voucher, later administrative processing of vouchers does not constitute certification for purposes of liability under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3528. 23 Comp.Gen. 953 (1944); 21 Comp.Gen. 841 (1942), cited in 67 Comp.Gen. 457, 466 (1988).

4. The Comptroller General approved Form DD-281 in B-61937, March 13, 1950.

5. From the language of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 127 and the appropriation, GAO cannot take exception to an emergency or extraordinary expenditure made under this authority, whether or not it is certified as confidential.