%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-06-11T13:14:15-04:00
2021-06-11T13:14:15-04:00
2021-06-11T13:14:15-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
97052111
uuid:6d59ab1c-0093-4e26-9c63-10818715ef68
uuid:5b994621-8f9d-4a57-9139-fdd645b3bd7f
Acrobat Web Capture 15.0
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
21 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
[19 0 R 19 0 R]
endobj
19 0 obj
<><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
[29 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(97052111)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/claims/civili\
an/HTML%20Word/97052111.html)Tj
49.38 0 Td
([6/11/2021 1:14:15 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 734.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 733.5 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 732.7503 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.75 l
0 1.499 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 733.5 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 650.25 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 649.5003 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.751 l
579 -0.751 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 648.7497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.751 l
0 1.5 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 649.5003 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.751 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(DATE: September 30, 1997)Tj
0 -2.75 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
([Redacted])Tj
T*
(Claimant)Tj
0 -2.75 TD
(Claims Case No. 97052111)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
15.224 -2.125 Td
(CLAIMS APPEALS BOARD DECISION)Tj
-15.224 -2.125 Td
(DIGEST)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(The standard employed to determine whether a person was at fault in acce\
pting an overpayment is whether, under the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(particular circumstances involved, a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.688 0 Td
(reasonable person should have known or suspected that he was receiving m\
ore than)Tj
-14.688 -1.125 Td
(his entitlement. Waiver of the debt of a finance officer who accepted an\
)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.931 0 Td
(incentive award issued using improper)Tj
-28.931 -1.125 Td
(procedures is not appropriate.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
0 -2.125 TD
(DECISION)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
T*
(This is in response to an appeal of GAO's Settlement Certificate, B-2744\
28, dated November 7, 1996, which denied)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(waiver under 5 U.S.C. \247 5584 of a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Department of Defense employee's debt to the United States resulting fro\
m erroneous)Tj
T*
(payments of salary. Under Section 103\(d\) of Public Law No. 104-316,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.438 0 Td
(110 Stat. 3826, 3828-3829, Oct. 19, 1996,)Tj
-28.438 -1.125 Td
(Congress transferred to the Director of the Office of Management & Budge\
t \(OMB\) the Comptroller General's)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.5 0 Td
(authority)Tj
-44.5 -1.125 Td
(under title 5, United States Code, Section 5584 \(5 U.S.C. \247 5584\) t\
o consider applications by Federal employees)Tj
T*
(requesting that the government waive)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.301 0 Td
(debts resulting from the erroneous overpayment of salary and allowances.\
The)Tj
-15.301 -1.125 Td
(OMB Director delegated this authority to the Secretary of Defense for)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.296 0 Td
(Department of Defense employees effective)Tj
-28.296 -1.125 Td
(December 18, 1996. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) n\
ow exercises the authority transferred)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
46.26 0 Td
(or)Tj
-46.26 -1.125 Td
(delegated to the Secretary of Defense through this Board, which is part \
of DOHA.)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
21.517 -2.125 Td
(Background)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.517 -2.125 Td
(The record indicates that the employee was a financial analyst at [Redac\
ted]. His debt was established as a result of a)Tj
T*
(Criminal Investigation Division \(CID\))Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
15.609 0 Td
(investigation conducted in 1995. The employee is indebted to the United \
States)Tj
-15.609 -1.375 Td
(for $3,000 for unauthorized incentive award payments in 1990, 1992, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.714 0 Td
(1993.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 399.5723 279.75 Tm
(\(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 399.5723 279 cm
0 0 m
11.369 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 410.9409 275.25 Tm
( The CID report found that the awards)Tj
-32.912 -1.125 Td
(were unauthorized because there was no sign of supporting documentation \
and that it was an abuse of fiduciary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
44.819 0 Td
(duty to)Tj
-44.819 -1.125 Td
(process and collect one's own award without concurrence of the chain of \
command. The report acknowledges)Tj
T*
(contradictory statements by the managers)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.855 0 Td
(interviewed, but found managerial incompetence and poor internal control\
s. It)Tj
-16.855 -1.125 Td
(suggests that the employee sought the award, completed the Form 1034s fo\
r his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.105 0 Td
(supervisors' signatures, and that senior)Tj
-32.105 -1.125 Td
(managers were not aware of the awards until 1993. The U.S. Attorney did \
not prosecute as a result of the CID)Tj
T*
(investigation because of the minimal dollar amount involved and the mana\
gement negligence and mismanagement.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The Settlement Certificate denied the employee's request for waiver of t\
he debt stating that there is no indication that the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(employee received official)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
10.911 0 Td
(authorization to receive the award payments. GAO believed that collectio\
n of the)Tj
-10.911 -1.125 Td
(overpayment would not be against equity and good conscience, nor would i\
t)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
30.743 0 Td
(be contrary to the best interests of the)Tj
-30.743 -1.125 Td
(United States.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(The employee appeals the denial of his waiver request contending that hi\
s signature does not appear on either the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(budgeting or disbursing documents for the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
17.22 0 Td
(awards, but that proper supervisory and budgeting officers' signatures a\
re on)Tj
-17.22 -1.125 Td
(the documents. In addition, he contends that there is no overpayment bec\
ause the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.685 0 Td
(Army billed the "customer" for the)Tj
-32.685 -1.125 Td
(awards. His reasoning is that there is no debt, so the Army is collectin\
g the overpayment as repayment of a loan, in)Tj
T*
(essence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(garnishing his check without providing him a day in court. The employee \
also is concerned about the tax)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
(\)~0`W)
endobj
27 0 obj
<>
endobj
28 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
H\n0y
CQ%Vhb:P~1:i_;'*c wߛ&hZg=][6 L7]=(W8QWWYGX'?ӳ/Rћ[wZAT݆:rĐ` kDKٺaudoDơ6kw%a䐝9o=K٥1ߵWYqvC'[-NxǬ5s*2̅p|>2Og iAZ4;8#; #Ȟ(Ȟ(Ȟx>033'''g*n)rnrV|[6˓Zm=^S 6
endstream
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H|y|ϼ>3$XBLҋRnm$DDBPiElAXc ψ]1.>=