BNUMBER:  B-272613
DATE:  October 16, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

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

B-272613

October 16, 1996

S.M. Helmrich
Director             
Financial Management Division
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service

Dear Mr. Helmrich:

This is in response to your June 28, 1996 request that we grant relief 
from liability under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3527 to Dr. Quentin Jones, retired 
former National Program Leader for the Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS) Narcotics Program, for the unexplained loss of $13,900 from his 
account.  As explained in further detail below, based on the record 
before us, we cannot grant relief.  

Background

Between May 6, 1987 and June 22, 1990, Dr. Jones was a designated 
Chief of Field Party (CFP) at international meetings sponsored in part 
by ARS for foreign scientists.  During this time he received five 
field party advances which were intended to be used to cover expenses 
of the scientists attending the meetings.  In June 1990, Dr. Jones 
requested his last advance of $5,500 which, added to the remaining 
balance of previous advances of $8,400, totaled $13,900.  On January 
14, 1993, the National Finance Center (NFC) produced a Chief of Field 
Party report which showed that Dr. Jones had an outstanding 
unliquidated balance in his field party fund.[1]  ARS contacted NFC 
which verified that no vouchers had been submitted or received to 
liquidate Dr. Jones' outstanding balance.  ARS called its financial 
management division to determine whether it had any original receipts 
or vouchers to document Dr. Jones' expenses.  The financial management 
division found copies of some hand written notes by Dr. Jones' in his 
file which indicated cash disbursements to persons between mid 1989 
through the beginning of 1990.  However, no vouchers or official 
documentation substantiating any of these transactions were found.  A 
letter was sent to Dr. Jones' last known address requesting any 
additional documentation he might have explaining the CFP outstanding 
balance.  There has been no response. 

You advance several explanations on Dr. Jones' behalf regarding the 
lack of documentation for the outstanding balance in his advance 
account.  First, you suggest that Dr. Jones' research work and trip 
details were highly classified.  You further suggest that for security 
reasons it is "very possible" that some of the documentation is 
missing.  Second, you maintain that, according to his supervisors, Dr. 
Jones' health was deteriorating quickly before he retired and that his 
poor health condition "affected his ability to organize and submit the 
required records and expense vouchers to liquidate the advance 
balance, as he had responsibly done previously."   

In addition, you request that relief be granted to Dr. Jones on the 
theory that applicable agency regulations in effect at the time were 
vague and ambiguous.  The applicable agency regulation in effect when 
Dr. Jones conducted his chief of field party activities was ARS 
Directive 303.6, January 24, 1985.  After that date, an agency 
reorganization changed the responsible office for reviewing and 
processing field party advance vouchers.  The function was transferred 
from the Financial Management Division to the Department of 
Agriculture's National Finance Center.  You assert that since that 
directive was not amended to reflect this organizational change there 
was some uncertainty over whom had oversight responsibility for field 
party advances.  Thus, since NFC did not follow-up to ensure that 
advances were liquidated, you conclude that its lack of action is the 
proximate result of the loss.  You add that on March 7, 1994, a new 
directive was issued to supersede the 1985 directive which requires 
status of all field party advances to be reviewed quarterly.  

Discussion

This Office is authorized to grant relief from liability upon its 
concurrence with determinations by the Department or agency that (1) 
the loss or deficiency occurred while the accountable officers or 
agents were acting in the discharge of their official duties, or that 
it occurred by reason of the acts or omissions of subordinates, and 
(2) that the loss or deficiency occurred without fault or negligence 
on the part of the accountable officers.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3527(a). 

This shortage is an "unexplained loss".  Although ARS advanced funds 
to Dr. Jones, there is no evidence that he in any way accounted for 
his use of these funds, i.e., expenses he may have incurred.  Such an 
unexplained loss of funds gives rise to personal liability on the part 
of the officer accountable for the funds.  The accountable officer may 
be relieved of liability where evidence is provided that the loss 
occured without fault or negligence by the accountable officer.  
However, assertions of the absence of negligence, or mere 
administrative determinations that there was no fault or negligence on 
the part of the accountable officer are not sufficient to rebut the 
presumption of negligence when unsupported by the evidence.  B-238955, 
April 3, 1991.  The burden lies upon the accountable official to 
establish due care.

The record submitted with your request does not offer any accounting 
by Dr. Jones for the funds in his possession.  Instead, you offer your 
speculation as to why there is an absence of any accounting for the 
funds entrusted to him.  You assert that the unspecified but yet 
classified nature of some of his activities could "possibly" have 
affected his record keeping.  This, however, has no bearing on Dr. 
Jones' responsibilities as CFP to properly record dollar amounts and 
dates of expenditures.  Likewise, your second assertion, that his 
health affected his abilities to account for the funds, does not 
absolve Dr. Jones of his responsibilities as a custodian of public 
funds.  ARS Directive 303.6 rested primary responsibility for 
operating and closing out the field party advances on the chief of 
field party, Dr. Jones.  His responsibilities and liability were 
clearly outlined at the time, and, according to your letter, Dr. Jones 
was familiar with and had complied with these regulations in the past:  

     " . . . CFP is personally liable to the Government for any losses 
     the Government may incur due to the CFP's actions or failure to 
     act . . ." 303.6 G.

     "[CFP's must] Maintain a daily record of field party advance fund 
     transactions in U.S. dollars on AD-661; document all expenditures 
     with a receipt.  If it is not possible to obtain a receipt from a 
     vendor, prepare and sign SF-1165; during field trip, prepare and 
     submit reimbursement vouchers . . . and receipt to Chief, 
     ASB-FMD. . ."   303.6 H.

     "CLOSING OUT CFP ADVANCES

     Upon completion of the field trip, return any unexpended funds 
     with a final SF-1129 to the Chief ASB-FMD. . . The responsibility 
     for the field party advance continues until proper accounting is 
     made to the Chief, ASB-FMD.  [Chief, ASB-FMD] examine and verify 
     the final SF-1129 and process with NFC . . . If necessary recover 
     field party advance balances from the CFP's salary, lump-sum 
     leave payment, or retirement fund."  303.6 O.

Your letter explicitly states that, notwithstanding the transfer of 
function from ASB-FMD, the NFC did receive and process Dr. Jones', and 
presumably all other CFPs,  "requests for field party advances, 
maintained records of the advances, and processed related vouchers . . 
. ."  Although you admit the NFC compiled all of this information, 
there is no evidence that Dr. Jones ever submitted any of the required 
official records or documentation, particularly the final close-out 
accountability report, either to NFC or to ASB-FMD in accordance with 
the ARS directive.  Other than the incomplete handwritten notes 
discovered by your financial management division, there are no 
official vouchers evidencing field party advance fund transactions 
during 1989-1990.  Moreover, there is no indication that NFC or FMD 
systematically lost or failed to keep accurate records of vouchers and 
receipts.  

Your position that functions were transferred to NFC and that NFC did 
not follow through with a timely audit of Dr. Jones' field advance has 
no bearing on his apparent failure to prepare the required 
accountability documents prescribed by Directive 303.6.  Again, your 
letter states that after the function was transferred the NFC did 
receive and process Dr. Jones' requests for field party advances, 
maintained records of the advances, and processed related vouchers for 
Dr. Jones. It is true that the overseeing Agriculture office, whether 
FMD or NFC, was required under 303.6 to institute the closing of a 
field party advance and demand an immediate refund for any violations.  
Directive 303.6 J4.  However, it is not plausible that this delay was 
the proximate cause of the loss.[2]  

Accordingly, we are unable to concur with your conclusion that the 
circumstances in this case overcome the accountable officers liability 
for funds entrusted to him.  Although we sympathize with Dr. Jone's 
current medical condition and the difficulty that imposes on ARS and 
others trying to account for the funds entrusted to him, the standards 
for accountability of funds entrusted to accountable officers are 
strict.  Thus, we cannot grant relief on the basis of the record 
presented at this time.  Since Dr. Jones is a retired employee, we 
recommend that you obtain his explanation and accounting for these 
funds.  If you are successful and if his explanation warrants, you 
should resubmit a request for relief on his behalf.

Sincerely, 

Gary L. Kepplinger
Associate General Counsel

B-272613

October 16, 1996

DIGEST

Where record submitted by agency in an unexplained loss case does not 
offer any accounting by accountable officer for funds entrusted to him 
and in his possession, relief of liability is denied to accountable 
officer.

1. The record submitted reflects that the discrepancy was first noted 
on March 31, 1992.  

2. Accountable officers may be relieved from liability even if they 
are found to have neglected their duties, if their negligence is not 
the proximate cause of the loss or shortage.  E.g., 63 Comp.Gen. 489, 
492 (1984);  B-235147, August 14, 1991.