BNUMBER:  B-274364 B-276306 
DATE:  April 23, 1997
TITLE:  B-274364 B-276306

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

B-274364
B-276306

April 23, 1997

Mr. David L. Gagermeier
Assistant General Counsel
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Indianapolis Center
Indianapolis, IN 46249
                 
Dear Mr. Gagermeier:
               
This responds to your letters of January 22, 1997 and August 19, 1996, 
requesting  relief of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) H.G. Thigpen, Defense 
Accounting Officer, Fort Stewart, Georgia, from personal liability for 
improper payments in the amount of $6,944.33 and Lieutenant Colonel 
(LTC) M.C. Mattingly, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, from personal 
liability for improper payments in the amount of $6,754.  For the 
reasons stated below, we grant both of your requests for relief.  In 
addition, we also relieve LTCs Thigpen's and Mattingly's subordinates 
who made the improper payments in question.

BACKGROUND

Your submissions indicate that the improper payments resulted from a
wide-ranging fraud scheme perpetrated by Sergeant First Class Robert 
J. Lamb.  Mr. Lamb received about $70,000 through 25 false claims to 
Army, Air Force and Navy accounting and travel offices for 
Do-It-Yourself (DITY) moves of personal property that he never in fact 
made.  The DITY program is a military program designed to save the 
government money and provide a quick, informal way to facilitate 
inexpensive moves of military personnel on short notice.  Under the 
DITY program, a member can present a voucher for advance payment of 
the anticipated costs of moving to another post pursuant to military 
travel orders.  The member need not go to his or her own command or 
even his or her own branch of the military to obtain such payments.  
Instead, through a procedure known as "cross disbursing," any 

command may make DITY advance payments to members based solely on the 
presentation of appropriate paperwork and military identification 
(ID).  The member's service and/or command is then billed for 
reimbursement after the fact.  

Mr. Lamb, while absent without leave from the Florida National Guard, 
altered his original travel orders requiring him to report to active 
duty for training at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to show travel from 
Florida to Fort Bliss, Texas.  He submitted fraudulent documentation 
directly to various base accounting and travel offices to receive 
these payments.  The U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer (USPFO), 
Florida, became aware of Mr. Lamb's fraudulent DITY claims when a 
clerk received billings for reimbursement from two different posts on 
the same day.  The USPFO contacted the U.S. Army Criminal 
Investigation Division Command (CID) about the fraudulent claims.  An 
investigation by CID eventually led to Mr. Lamb's apprehension, 
arrest, and prosecution.  

Lieutenant Colonel Thigpen

On August 24, 1994, Mr. Lamb submitted his first DITY claim at a 
branch office of the Fort Stewart, Georgia, finance office.  Mr. Lamb 
submitted his altered travel orders as well as a forged DD Form 2278 
(Application for Do-It-Yourself Move and Counseling Checklist).  Since 
the documents were filled out correctly and he had a valid military 
identification card, the clerk[1] prepared a travel voucher for Mr. 
Lamb's signature.  The voucher was loaded into the disbursing system 
and Mr. Lamb received a Treasury check for $3,630.60.  He signed the 
check register acknowledging receipt of the check.   

On August 26, 1994, Mr. Lamb submitted his second fraudulent DITY 
claim at Fort Stewart, this time at the main finance office.  He used 
the same fraudulent orders and submitted another forged DD Form 2278.   
Since the documents were filled out correctly and he had a valid 
military identification card, the clerk1 prepared a travel voucher for 
Mr. Lamb's signature.  The voucher was loaded into the disbursing 
system and he received a Treasury check for $3,613.73.  He signed the 
check register acknowledging receipt of the check.   

Lieutenant Colonel M.C. Mattingly

On August 30, 1994, Mr. Lamb presented his altered travel orders to 
the transportation office at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Since the 
documents appeared to be in order and filled out correctly the 
transportation office prepared and certified a DD Form 2278.  Mr. Lamb 
then took this documentation to the travel branch at the finance 
office at Fort Jackson.  Since the documents were filled out correctly 
and he had a valid military identification card, the clerk, Ms. Linda 
Garland, prepared a travel voucher for Mr. Lamb's signature.  The lead 
clerk in the branch audited and certified the travel voucher and 
loaded it into the disbursing system.  Mr. Lamb received a Treasury 
check for $3,140.  He signed the check register acknowledging receipt 
of the check.   

Mr. Lamb waited until October 5, 1994 to submit his second fraudulent 
DITY claim at the same Fort Jackson travel branch finance office.  
This time he did not go to the transportation office but used the same 
fraudulent orders and DD Form 2278 he used in the August 30, 1994 
fraudulent claim.  The clerk, Ms. Linda Garland, did not recognize Mr. 
Lamb from his previous visit.  Since the documents were filled out 
correctly and he had a valid military identification card, she 
processed the travel voucher for Mr. Lamb's signature but discovered 
that he had already received a DITY payment using the same travel 
orders.  She informed Mr. Lamb of this and he advised that he returned 
the advance to the USPFO in Florida because his wife was ill and they 
had never made the move.  Ms. Garland sought clearance from the lead 
travel technician who advised her to call USPFO in Florida to receive 
approval for the second payment.  Ms. Garland called the USPFO in 
Florida and obtained the necessary approval for the second payment, 
although she does not recall who she talked to.  The voucher was 
audited, certified and loaded into the disbursing system and Mr. Lamb 
received a Treasury check for $3,614.  He signed the check register 
acknowledging receipt of the check.  

DISCUSSION

As the finance and accounting officer officially responsible for the 
account,
LTCs Thigpen and Mattingly are personally liable for deficiencies in 
their accounts caused by any improper payments made by their 
subordinates.  This Office has authority under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3527(c) to 
relieve a disbursing officer from liability when the record indicates 
that the disbursing officer acted within the bounds of due care;  that 
there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the disbursing 
officer;  and that a diligent effort was made to collect the improper 
payments.   In cases where subordinates of the official actually 
disbursed the funds, we have granted relief upon a showing that the 
finance officer properly supervised his subordinates by maintaining an 
adequate system of procedures and controls to safeguard the funds and 
took steps to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the 
system.  B-270480, Jan. 18, 1996; 62 Comp. Gen. 476  (1983).

As accountable officers, the disbursing clerks at Fort Stewart and 
Fort Jackson are strictly liable for the deficiency in their accounts 
resulting from the improper payments.  62 Comp. Gen. 476, 479-80 
(1983).  Under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3527(c), we may relieve a disbursing 
official from liability for a deficiency resulting from an improper 
payment if we determine that the payment was not the result of bad 
faith or lack of reasonable care by the disbursing official, and that 
diligent collection efforts were made.   B-239122, Feb. 21, 1991.    
             
Your letter and supporting documents establish that LTCs Thigpen and 
Mattingly   had in place and maintained an adequate system to 
safeguard the funds for which they were responsible.  Furthermore, the 
travel clerks followed these procedures, including ensuring that the 
payee was properly identified by a picture ID.  There is no evidence 
that the payments were the result of bad faith or lack of reasonable 
care.   Even an adequate and effectively supervised system of 
procedures and controls cannot always prevent improper payments 
resulting from criminal activity.   B-270480, Jan. 18, 1996.  

Collection Action

As indicated above, 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3527(c) permits us to deny relief in 
cases in which the agency has not taken diligent collection action.  
Here the record indicates that when LTC Thigpen and LTC Mattingly both 
learned of the frauds perpetrated by Mr. Lamb, they immediately began 
collection action.  Initial collection action was unsuccessful because 
he was Absent Without Leave from the National Guard and did not have 
any pay due him.  After Mr. Lamb was given a dishonorable discharge 
from the National Guard on May 5, 1995 the loss was referred to the 
Directorate for Debt and Claims Management.  The Directorate is 
currently pursuing collection action against Mr. Lamb in accordance 
with the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 C.F.R. Parts 101-105 
(1995).

DITY Program Vulnerability

Finally, we note, as did the record compiled in the CID's 
investigation, that because the DITY program is aimed at quickly 
paying service members to move themselves and provide the government 
with savings, it is susceptible to this type of fraud.  For that 
reason, the CID reports contain a number of suggestions intended to 
reduce the vulnerability of the DITY program to fraudulent 
manipulation of the type perpetrated by Mr. Lamb without significantly 
impairing its utility to the Defense Department.  The record reflects 
that both LTCs Thigpen and Mattingly have 

initiated new policies to prevent soldiers not from the local area 
from receiving DITY advances.  We trust that the Department of Defense 
will consider these and other appropriate measures in order to reduce 
the possibility for similar losses in the DITY program.  

Accordingly, we grant relief to both LTC Thigpen, LTC Mattingly and 
their subordinates.

Sincerely, 

Gary L. Kepplinger
Associate General Counsel

B-274364
B-276306

April 23, 1997

DIGEST

Relief is granted to two finance officers who supervised an adequate 
system of procedures and controls to safeguard funds in their care.  
Their subordinates are also relieved since they complied with existing 
procedures, there is no evidence that the payments were the result of 
bad faith or lack of reasonable care and the improper payments 
resulted from criminal activity that even an adequate and effectively 
supervised system cannot always prevent.

1. Although the record is unclear, the travel clerks issuing the 
payments were apparently Michael Davidson and Travis Proctor.