BNUMBER:  B-271021
DATE:  September 18, 1996
TITLE:  Improper Travel Advance Paid by Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Imprest Fund Cashier

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Improper Travel Advance Paid by Equal Employment Opportunity 
          Commission Imprest Fund Cashier

File:     B-271021

Date:September 18, 1996

DIGEST

An imprest fund cashier at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) may not be reimbursed for a travel advance paid from his 
imprest fund to a witness traveling on government business, because 
the travel advance was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing 
payment of travel expenses.  The fact that the cashier received 
instructions from superiors to make the improper payment does not 
relieve him of responsibility for the resulting deficiency in his 
account.  Statement of a superior that he would "assume liability for 
repayment of the funds" is personal to the cashier and does not affect 
the cashier's liability for the improper payment.

DECISION

This is in response to a request from Mrs. Willie King, Director, 
Financial Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC), for a decision as to whether an imprest fund cashier at the 
EEOC may be reimbursed for a travel advance paid from his imprest fund 
to an EEOC witness traveling on government business.  As set forth 
below, we conclude that the voucher submitted by the imprest fund 
cashier for reimbursement may not be paid, because the travel advance 
was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing payment of travel 
expenses of witnesses.

Background

This case involves a travel advance paid to a witness for the EEOC who 
was not a government employee.  The EEOC requested that Ms. Karen 
Rudolph appear as a witness in a pending matter in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  
Ms. Rudolph was to travel from Gillette, Wyoming to Cheyenne on June 
8, 1994.

On June 8, 1994, Mr. Michael Fetzer, Supervisory Program Analyst, EEOC 
Field Management Programs-West, sent a memorandum to Carlos Villescas, 
Acting Director of the Denver District, EEOC, requesting that Mr. 
Villescas "immediately make available from [the] District's imprest 
fund an amount not to exceed $150.00, and wire it to Ms. Karen Rudolph 
at Gillette, Wyoming, for her use in conjunction with her 6/8/94 
travel from Gillette to Cheyenne Wyoming" in connection with a pending 
EEOC matter.  Mr. Fetzer told Mr. Villescas that "in the circumstances 
and time frame presented, . . . I see no other option which serves the 
agency's interests."  Mr. Fetzer concluded the memorandum with the 
following statement:  "If there is a subsequent determination that the 
funds should not have been disbursed for the aforementioned purpose, I 
will assume liability for repayment of the funds."

Mr. Villescas in turn sent a memorandum to Mr. Jerry Mabry, 
Administrative Officer at the EEOC Denver District Office, informing 
Mr. Mabry that he was "directed to take $130 from the imprest fund in 
order to purchase a money order in Ms. Rudolph's name and forward this 
money in her name via Western Union to Gillette, Wyoming . . . ."  At 
the bottom of Mr. Villescas' June 8 memorandum to Mr. Mabry is the 
following handwritten notation:  "To: Dave Guthrie.  Per the above 
directive, please purchase money order as directed.  J. Mabry 6/8/94."

On June 8, Mr. David Guthrie, Imprest Fund Cashier for the EEOC Denver 
District Office, prepared a Standard Form 1165, "Receipt for 
Cash-Subvoucher," in the amount of $160.00.  The stated purpose on the 
Form 1165 was:  "Purchase and send Western Union Money Order to Karen 
Rudolph."  Mr. Guthrie was designated on the form as both the cashier 
and the recipient of the funds.  Also on that day, a Standard Form 
1038, "Advance of Funds Application and Account," was prepared on 
behalf of Ms. Rudolph, and approved in the amount of $130.00.  The SF 
1038 was signed by Mr. Mabry as "Authorizing Official" and by Mr. 
Villescas as "Approving Official."  Thereupon, Mr. Guthrie used the 
$160.00 he had received from his imprest fund to purchase a $130.00 
"money transfer" from Western Union, payable to     Ms. Rudolph.  The 
charge for the transfer was $22.00, resulting in a total expenditure 
by Mr. Guthrie of $152.00.[1]

Later that same day, Mr. Guthrie submitted a Standard Form 1164, 
"Claim for Reimbursement for Expenditures on Official Business," 
totalling $152.00.  The explanation listed on the Form 1164 was as 
follows:  "Purchase of Western Union Money Transfer for Karen Rudolph 
to travel from Gillette, Wy. to Cheyenne, Wy, to obtain a hotel room, 
and to return to Gillette, Wy.  EEOC vs Laramie County Sheriff's 
Office (systemic case)."  This form was signed by Mr. Villescas as 
"Approving Official" on June 9 and by Mr. Mabry as "Authorized 
Certifying Officer" on June 10.   

In late June 1994, Ms. Rudolph submitted to the EEOC Denver Regional 
Office a completed travel voucher in the amount of $206.76, 
representing total expenses she incurred in attending the EEOC 
function on June 8-9, 1994.  This voucher was forwarded to EEOC's 
Washington office, which was unaware that Ms. Rudolph had received a 
travel advance from Mr. Guthrie.  Thus, the amount of the travel 
advance was not deducted from her total expenses and the EEOC 
Washington office sent a check for $206.76 to Ms. Rudolph, which she 
apparently negotiated.

Ms. Rudolph again traveled on behalf of the government on July 6-8, 
1994, in connection with the same case.  In this instance, however, 
she did not receive a travel advance.  A travel voucher was sent to 
her for signature, but was never returned to EEOC.  EEOC subsequently 
has been unable to contact Ms. Rudolph.

The EEOC Financial Management Division disallowed Mr. Guthrie's claim 
for reimbursement of $152.00 on the ground that there was a "lack of 
statutory payment authority for reimbursement of an advance paid with 
Imprest Funds."  EEOC essentially asks whether this disallowance was 
proper and whether Mr. Guthrie is liable for the travel advance paid 
to Ms. Rudolph.

Travel Advance and Imprest Fund Procedures

Department of the Treasury regulations regarding imprest funds require 
that each agency issue regulations governing payments from imprest 
funds and that cashiers follow those regulations.  Treasury Financial 
Manual, Part 4, Chapter 3000.  See also Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
13.404(c).  The EEOC has established such regulations in EEOC Order 
470.001, December 3, 1991, "Imprest Fund Management."  Those 
regulations provide:  "Cashiers are personally responsible for the 
legality and propriety of cash payments made from their Imprest Fund . 
. . .  They must first insure that all disbursements are supported by 
sufficient documentation and authorization."  (EEOC Order 470.001,  sec.  
6.a.(1)).

The EEOC also has regulations governing the payment of travel 
expenses.  The EEOC Travel Handbook, EEOC Order 335, Appendix A, 
specifically provides that "travel advances may not be made for 
private parties."  According to the submission, EEOC has adopted this 
policy "because there is a risk of not being able to recover the money 
if the actual travel does not take place."  Normally in circumstances 
such as the instant case, when a private party is traveling on 
government business, documents are prepared justifying the proposed 
payment, and a Treasury check is issued to the imprest fund cashier.  
The imprest fund cashier then makes payments to the witness upon 
receipt of appropriate documentation.  See EEOC Memorandum dated April 
19, 1985, "Procedures to Pay Witness Travel Costs Other than by 
Reimbursement Check."

The EEOC regulations are clear that private parties may not be paid 
travel advances and that cashiers are responsible for insuring that 
payments are proper. 
We do not have a request to relieve Mr. Guthrie from indebtedness for 
this loss.  However, we have held that where an accountable officer 
fails to follow regulations and a loss of funds or an improper payment 
is caused, such failure to follow the regulations must be considered 
negligence and relief from liability is denied.  See 54 Comp. Gen. 112 
(1974).  Accordingly, the EEOC was correct to disallow Mr. Guthrie's 
reimbursement for expenses incurred in providing the travel advance to 
Ms. Rudolph.  The fact that Mr. Guthrie may have received instructions 
from superiors to make the improper payment does not relieve him of 
responsibility for the deficiency in his account resulting from the 
improper payment.  See 55 Comp. Gen. 297 (1975); 49 Comp. Gen. 38 
(1969).  The improper payment made by Mr. Guthrie, accordingly, 
created a deficiency in his imprest fund account in the amount of 
$152.00, for which he is personally liable.  See GAO, Policy and 
Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, title 7,  sec.  6.8; 
Treasury Financial Manual, Part 4, Chapter 3000.

Accounting Adjustment

In the instant case, had no actual loss to the Government occurred, a 
possible remedy for the deficiency in Mr. Guthrie's account would be 
to charge the travel advance to the proper account and credit Mr. 
Guthrie's account, thereby eliminating the deficiency.  See 63 Comp. 
Gen. 422, 434 (1984).  We have permitted such "accounting adjustments" 
in appropriate cases when a particular payment that was found to be 
improper would have been proper had it been made following proper 
procedures and from the proper account.  See, e.g., B-223113, Dec. 9, 
1986.  

Here, however, no such accounting adjustment is possible.  Because 
EEOC subsequently reimbursed Ms. Rudolph by check for the full amount 
of her expenses, without deducting the travel advance she received 
from Mr. Guthrie, there is now no account to which the advance paid to 
Ms. Rudolph properly may be charged.  Any "account adjustment," 
accordingly, would simply move the deficiency resulting from Mr. 
Guthrie's improper payment from his own account to another account.

One remedy that may be available in this case is the recovery from Ms. 
Rudolph of amounts erroneously paid or due her.  The record is unclear 
as to what efforts EEOC has made to collect amounts erroneously paid 
Ms. Rudolph.  See generally Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 
C.F.R. Chapter 2,  sec.  102.1(a) (1996).  Also, as a consequence of her 
travel on behalf of the government on July 6-8, 1994, Ms. Rudolph may 
be due reimbursement of travel expenses upon submission of a claim.  
To the extent EEOC can ascertain the amount due Ms. Rudolph for this 
travel, EEOC should consider the recovery of all or part of the amount 
erroneously paid Ms. Rudolph by administrative offset against this 
latter amount.  See 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3716(a); 4 C.F.R.  sec.  102.3 (1996); 16 
Comp. Gen. 964 (1937). 

Assumption of Liability by Mr. Fetzer

Finally, we note that Mr. Fetzer, in his June 8 memorandum, purported 
to "assume liability for repayment of the funds" in the event of a 
"subsequent determination that the funds should not have been 
disbursed."  This statement by Mr. Fetzer, however, has no effect on 
the liability of Mr. Guthrie for the deficiency in his account, which 
is fixed by statute and regulation.  The government, accordingly, need 
look no further than Mr. Guthrie for restitution of the deficiency.  
Any remedies that Mr. Guthrie may have regarding representations made 
by Mr. Fetzer are personal to him.

/s/Robert Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although the record is unclear, the remaining balance ($8.00) of 
the $160.00 that Mr. Guthrie received from his imprest fund apparently 
was returned to that fund.