TITLE:  ï¿½Relief of Accountable Officer Sally V. Slocum - American Embassy,ï¿½ï¿½ Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, B-288284.2, March 7, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-288284.2
DATE:  March 7, 2003
**********************************************************************
 Relief of Accountable Officer Sally V. Slocum - American Embassy,  
Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, B-288284.2, March 7, 2003

    
B-288284.2
    
    
    
March 7, 2003
    
John P. Markey, Jr.
Acting Chairperson
Committee of Inquiry into Fiscal Irregularities
United States Department of State
1800 N. Kent Street, 5th Floor
Arlington, VA  22209-2163

   Subject:  Relief of Accountable Officer Sally V. Slocum - American
Embassy,   Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
    
Dear Mr. Markey:
    
This responds to your letter of December 13, 2002, which provides
additional information in support of the State Department's June 20, 2001
request that we relieve Ms. Sally V. Slocum, formerly of the American
Embassy in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, from liability in the
amount of $5,701.43 resulting from her certification of an improper
payment.  Upon careful consideration of the matter in light of the
information set forth in your recent letter, we grant the requested
relief.
    
BACKGROUND
    
In the fall of 1991, due to widespread violence resulting from a military
mutiny, most staff of the American Embassy in Kinshasa, Republic of the
Congo, were evacuated to the Embassy in Brazzaville.  At this time, Ms.
Slocum, the Administrative Officer for the Brazzaville Embassy, was
approached by or on behalf of Kinshasa Embassy personnel concerning the
possibility of evacuating their household pets to safer locations. 
According to Ms. Slocum's account, she replied that the evacuation of pets
was a personal expense and that government resources could not be used. 
Nevertheless, at some point the pets were evacuated to various locations
by Agence Air Afrique (*Air Afrique*), although the record does not reveal
who ultimately authorized or arranged for the pet evacuation or how the
pet evacuation was intended to be funded.  Ms. Slocum stated that she
learned nothing further about the pet evacuation until seeing subsequent
cable communications indicating that various Embassy employees were being
billed for the air evacuation of their pets. 
    
In June 1993, violence again erupted in the Republic of the Congo, this
time requiring the evacuation of Brazzaville Embassy personnel.  During
this crisis, Air Afrique apparently threatened to cut off its
transportation services to the evacuating Brazzaville Embassy personnel
unless a payment was made in the amount of $27,634.07 for its services
provided in the 1991 Kinshasa Embassy pet evacuation.  Ms. Slocum sought
advice from the Kinshasa Embassy staff as to how to proceed.  On June 9,
1993, Ms. Slocum certified payment of this amount to Air Afrique, relying
on the fiscal data provided over the telephone by Kinshasa staff and that
Embassy's instructions to proceed with the payment and charge it to
Kinshasa's Suspense Deposit Abroad (SDA) account.  According to State's
June 20 letter, the SDA account is a fund maintained at overseas posts
from which payments for personal expenses can be made on behalf of and as
directed by the depositors, which include Embassy employees and other
authorized individuals and entities.  Embassy employees typically deposit
money into the fund in order to make payments for telephone, gasoline, or
utility bills.  However, at the time Ms. Slocum certified the $27,634.07
payment to Air Afrique out of the SDA account, no monies had been
deposited into the SDA account for that purpose.[1]  Letter from Michael
Rafalko, Acting Chairperson, Committee of Inquiry into Fiscal
Irregularities, Department of State, to Gary Kepplinger, Managing
Associate General Counsel, GAO, June 20, 2001.
    
In our prior letter to you concerning this matter, we explained that we
were unable to either grant or deny relief from liability, as the record
submitted with State's initial letter of June 20 was insufficient to
support any determination.  Letter from Susan A. Poling, Managing
Associate General Counsel, GAO, to Ronald L. Miller, Chairperson,
Committee of Inquiry into Fiscal Irregularities, Department of State,
B-288284, May 29, 2002.  The record was unclear as to the nature of the
government's responsibility for the SDA funds and what funds were actually
used to pay the Air Afrique bill.  We could not make a determination
regarding Ms. Slocum's diligence given the lack of information addressing
the SDA account's control procedures or any other State Department or
Embassy policies that would have guided her actions.  Furthermore, the
record did not identify the Kinshasa Embassy official who provided the
guidance upon which Ms. Slocum relied or the disbursing official who
actually made the improper payment.  It was possible from the record that
these individuals may have shared any liability for the improper payment
with Ms. Slocum, the certifying officer.   
    
Your December 13 letter states that the SDA account is a deposit account
established by the Department of Treasury for the Department of State over
25 years ago.  The U.S. government is responsible to each depositor for
ensuring that amounts received are appropriately deposited in the account
and later disbursed or returned to the depositor as directed.  Letter from
John P. Markey, Jr., Acting Chairperson, Committee of Inquiry into Fiscal
Irregularities, Department of State, to Susan A. Poling, Managing
Associate General Counsel, GAO, December 13, 2002.  You provided a copy of
the State Department's Service Post User Manual, Appendix A, Section 9,
*Suspense Deposit and Trust Fund Account Disbursements,* Nov. 11, 1994,
which provides general guidance on the use of the SDA account and how to
make and record a payment from the account.  Given this relationship, the
government would be required to reimburse a deficiency in the SDA account
using appropriated funds and Ms. Slocum, as a certifying officer, could be
held liable for any improper payments made out of the SDA account unless
relief from liability is granted.[2] 
    
Concerning Ms. Slocum's reliance on the Kinshasa embassy official's
instruction to pay the voucher using Kinshasa fiscal data for its SDA
account, your December 13 letter confirms that embassies often transmit
fiscal data via the telephone when circumstances make it necessary and
that this method of operation had been successful even though there were
no formal guidelines or procedures for operating in this manner. 
Extensive interviews with officials present in 1991 have been inconclusive
as to who in Kinshasa actually authorized the shipment of pets before the
money was deposited in the SDA account or who authorized Ms. Slocum to
certify payment of the Air Afrique voucher using the fiscal data for the
SDA account.  However, your letter states that several employees who were
present in Kinshasa and Brazzaville at the time have corroborated Ms.
Slocum's statement that she was so authorized and led to believe that the
Kinshasa SDA account was properly funded.  Your letter also reports that
since the Kinshasa embassy was ransacked during the civil war there is no
paperwork available that could shed further light upon this matter,
including the specific source of the funds used and whether the payment to
Air Afrique was made as a check or in cash in Brazzaville.  Your letter
reiterates the State Department view that in certifying the Air Afrique
bill for payment Ms. Slocum was carrying out her official duties with full
diligence during a time of civil war and an urgent evacuation, and she
should be relieved of the liability for the improper payment.
    
DISCUSSION
    
Our Office may relieve a certifying officer of liability for an improper
payment of public money where we find that the certification was based on
official records and the official did not know, and by reasonable
diligence and inquiry could not have discovered, the correct information. 
31 U.S.C. S: 3528(b)(1)(A).  Typically, we base our determination of
whether to grant relief on evidence such as the standard operating
procedures in effect at the time of the erroneous payment and the
statements of knowledgeable agency officials.  B-272615, May 19, 1997;
B-254385, Mar. 22, 1994; B-235037, Sept. 18, 1989. 
    
Based on the record now before us, we conclude that Ms. Slocum exercised
reasonable diligence since there is no indication of bad faith and Ms.
Slocum, who initially questioned the propriety of paying for the
evacuation of pets with federal funds, subsequently certified payment of
Air Afrique's voucher in the belief that there were sufficient funds in
the Kinshasa SDA account as directed by the Kinshasa embassy official. 
See 70 Comp. Gen. 298 (1991); B-221940, Oct. 7, 1987.  Here, the improper
payment occurred because, in certifying the Air Afrique voucher for
payment, Ms. Slocum relied on the fiscal data sent by the Kinshasa
official who approved the payment.  She had no reason to doubt that there
were sufficient funds to cover the payment.  Given the circumstances in
the Congo at that time and the urgency of the need to evacuate government
employees and their families from a dangerous situation, it would be an
undue burden to require that she should have sought further documentation
or personally examined supporting materials behind the Kinshasa official's
authorization and transmission of fiscal data.  This is particularly true
since, under the common practice in effect for embassy certifying officers
as reported in your December 13 letter, she was expected to rely on the
Kinshasa embassy official's assurances and permitted to certify payments
based on such instructions.  See, e.g., 67 Comp. Gen. 457, 466 (1988)
(certifying official who accepted memorandum certification of supervisor
and certified voucher schedule for payment is not liable for the loss
resulting from the improper payment since she was entitled to rely upon
her supervisor's certification).   Therefore, we grant relief to
Ms. Slocum.
    
As your December 13 letter indicates, the State Department investigation
of the circumstances surrounding the payment to Air Afrique failed to
identify and document the role of the Kinshasa official who authorized the
payment of the Air Afrique voucher or the disbursing officer who actually
made the payment.  The lack of a paper trail makes assignment of
responsibility for the improper payment impossible.  In situations like
this, where there is no basis for attributing a loss or improper payment
to one particular individual, we have determined that no one can be held
liable.  See B-235368, Apr. 19, 1991, and cases cited. 
    
In light of these circumstances, we are concerned with what we view as
inadequate controls over the SDA account and a lack of specific, objective
guidelines provided to accountable officers at embassy posts.  We
recommend that the State Department take steps to eliminate the
possibility of incurring this same sort of error in the future.  This
would include developing more detailed written policies or procedures for
validating amounts in the embassy SDA accounts, including requiring
certifying officers to request verification of the amount in the account
before payments from the SDA accounts are made or giving the certifying
officers access to account databases which would allow them to
independently verify the amounts available.
    
Sincerely yours,
    
    
/signed/
    
Susan A. Poling
Managing Associate General Counsel

    
Digest
    
Under 31 U.S.C. S: 3528(b)(1)(A), an embassy certifying officer who
certified an erroneous payment to an air carrier is relieved of financial
liability because the officer did not know, and by reasonable diligence
and inquiry could not have discovered, the correct information.  The
officer was following the standard practices at the time and certified the
payment pursuant to the direction of an official at another embassy and in
the belief that there were sufficient funds available in the charged
account.
    

   ------------------------

   [1] It appears that no money was actually collected from (or deposited
into the Kinshasa SDA account by) individuals whose pets were evacuated
until shortly after the improper payment was discovered in August 1994. 
According to the record, all but $5,701.43 has been collected and of this
amount, $2,326.07 is considered non-recoverable as there is insufficient
information to identify the persons owing these payments.
    
[2] We have held that in situations like this, where the Government has
custody of the funds, they are considered *public money for purposes of 31
U.S.C. S: 3527(a).*  See, e.g., B-238955, April 3, 1991 (State
Department's Overseas Consular Service trust fund was considered public
money for purposes of 31 U.S.C. S: 3527(a)); B-215477, November 5, 1984
(loss of patient funds by Veterans Administration hospital constitutes a
liability of the Government for which an accountable officer may be
liable).