AUDIT EXCEPTIONS CONCERNING PER DIEM PAYMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05747A000100060047-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 3, 2002
• Sequence Number: 47
• Publication Date: November 19, 1948
• Content Type: MEMO

Appr D /2 -05747AO00100060047-2
7,
ffi
Oce Memorandum e UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
OGC Has Reviewed
TO Director
DATE: 19 November 1948
FROM General Counsel / . t f, k'~v u. !3 rti~f.? . !~. C 'J .' i'",. `~
SUBJECT: Audit Exceptions Concerning Per Diem Payments
1. We have considered carefully the attached file
concerning per diem payments made to Miss 0 and 25X1A9A
25X1A9A Miss with particular reference to what action,
if any, the Director is legally authorized to take. In
spite of the lengthy memoranda which analyzed the techni-
calities of these cases, the situation seems simple.
2. Per diems were authorized for each employee while
in Washington on temporary duty, and vouchers were certi-
fied for payment by the certifying officers. At the time
the payments were authorized and made, papers were on file
in the office indicating that their addresses were in
Washington. (It is apparently true that in conversations
the employees were asked where their homes were and men-
tioned other than Washington addresses, but the fact
remains that Personal History Statements and other docu-
ments set forth addresses in Washington.) It is apparent
therefore that, although appointed for overseas stations
with temporary du in Washington, neither Miss 25X1A9A
25X1A9A nor Miss entered into actual travel status
until they e Washington,
3. Under the Standardized Government Travel Regu-
lations, per diem may not be allowed until an employee
enters into a bona fide travel status. Your instructions
and the Special Funds Regulations in force at the time
-required compliance with the Standardized Government
Travel Regulations, We feel it must be concluded that
there was no basis for certification of the per diem
25X1A9A vouchers for Miss , as no
circumstances exio c wxie i would raise an obligation
on the part of the Government. This is based on the
responsibility placed by law on the certifying officer,
as set forth clearly in a recent decision of the Comp-
troller General (28 Comp. Gen, 17, B-74820).
4. In that case, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue had certified a voucher in which an erroneous
computation had been made by subordinates. The excep-
tion was not taken by the auditor until two and one-half
years later., by which time the statute of limitations
25X1
prevented any recovery from the taxpayer. The Secretary
Dec ,30
Approved For Release 2003/01/00,7 A
KEY DATED
8VJ04# '-^ TYPE
NEXT ELY /a AUTHt HR 19?1
 .,Approved For Release 2003/01/2
of the Treasury pointed out that there was no fault or
negligence of the certifying officer and that the Comp-
troller General may in his discretion relieve a certify-
ing officer of liability whenever :
a. He finds that the certification was based
on official records and that such certifying officer
or employee did not know and by reasonable diligence
and inquiry could not ascertain the actual facts; or
b. That the obligation was incurred in good
faith that the payment was not contrary to any
statutory provision and that the United States has
received value for the payment.
In his answer, the Comptroller General pointed out that
under the law an officer certifying a voucher shall:
a. Be held responsible for the existence and
correctness of the facts recited in the certificate
or otherwise stated in the voucher or its supporting
papers, and for the legality of the proposed payment
under the appropriation or fund involved; and
b. Be held accountable for and required to
make good to the United States the amount of any
illegal, improper, or incorrect payment resulting
from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certifi-
cate made by him, as well as for any payment pro-
hibited by law or which did not represent a legal
obligation under the appropriation or fund involved.
He quoted an earlier opinion to the effect that a certify-
ing officer may not escape liability for losses resulting
from his improper certification merely by stating that
he was not in a position to ascertain of his personal
knowledge that each item on the voucher was correctly stated,
5. If the error could have been discovered by exercise
of reasonable diligence and inquiry, the relief may not be
granted under the Comptroller General's statutory authority
under the first proviso of the authority quoted above, and
if the United States does not receive value for amount of
10 nilin11itl1lIli 1 i 11 1
Approved For Release 2003/01/24: CIA-RDP78-05747A000100060047-2