0101 Overview

This chapter establishes the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) financial policies for cash management. This includes prohibited dual functions, shortages of funds, and reporting of irregularities.

Key points covered in this chapter:

• Under 31 U.S.C. § 3528, Certifying Officials may be responsible for reimbursing the Federal Government for any payment determined to be illegal, improper, or incorrect;
• All irregularities affecting the accounts of Certifying/Disbursing Officers or VA employees will be reported to the Executive Director of the Financial Services Center (FSC) for review and further action;
• Treasury uses form FS2958 to authorize the Head of the Agency (HoA) and other officials appointed by the HoA to delegate the authority to expend federal funds;
• Treasury’s Fiscal Service requires a new FS2958 be completed any time there is a change in SECVA; and
• Treasury’s Fiscal Service requires the use of form FS210 to designate individuals to perform specific functions such as a Certifying Official.

0102 Revisions

Section	Revision	Office	Reason for Change	Effective Date
0104	Clarified requirement for Certifying Officers and Certifying Officials to be Federal Government employees.	OFP (047G)	For clarification	June 2023
010501	Added language to clarify inherently governmental functions.	OFP (047G)	For clarification	June 2023

0103 Definitions

Certification – The act of verifying the accuracy and legality of an invoice and supporting records.

Improper payment – A payment that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. The term improper payment includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible good or service; any duplicate payment; any payments for a good and service not received, except for those payments authorized by law; and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. Improper payments include monetary loss improper payments and non-monetary loss improper payments. The improper payment amounts, and unknown payment amounts will be reported as required by OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C and/or any additional OMB guidance.

Invoice – A written or electronically transmitted document requesting payment. A proper invoice meets the requirements of the Prompt Payment Act under 5 C.F.R. § 1315. The term “invoice” also includes:

• Receiving reports and delivery tickets when contractually designated as invoices; and
• Non-vendor payment requests (e.g., Veterans benefits, employee travel, salary, etc.)

Secure Payment System (SPS) – A Treasury system used by Federal Government agencies to schedule and certify payments securely.

0104 Roles and Responsibilities

Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Other Key Officials, Administration and Staff Office CFO’s and Fiscal Officers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the policies outlined in this chapter.

Authorizing Officials (delegators) are responsible for designating and managing the certifying officers.

Certifying Officers are Federal Government employees, authorized by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3321 and 3325, responsible for approving schedules of payments transmitted to Treasury for disbursements and for errors made in the processing of the voucher schedule, such as the number of individual vouchers and total dollar amount of vouchers submitted to Treasury for payment.

Certifying Officials are Federal Government employees authorized by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3321 and 3325, responsible for certifying each invoice for payment and for ensuring that the invoice is correct, accurate and in accordance with the related obligation document. Typically, a Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or their technical representative performs this function for invoices related to a contract.

Chief of the Finance Office is responsible for all fiscal activities at each facility and will maintain sufficient records as required in support of fiscal and accounting functions.

Disbursing Officers are Federal Government employees authorized by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3321 and 3325 to perform financial transactions (deposit collections, disburse checks, and transfer funds between agencies). There are different types of disbursing officers, specifically, there are Treasury Disbursing Officers (TDO), non-Treasury Disbursing Officers (NTDO), and NTDOs located overseas, also referred to as United States Disbursing Officers (USDOs).

Financial Services Center (FSC) located in Austin, Texas, is a franchise fund (fee-for- service) organization within VA that offers a wide range of financial and accounting products and services to both VA and other Government agencies.

Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA) Finance Center is responsible for authorizing, recording, processing, reporting, and monitoring payments to and on the behalf of eligible veterans and their beneficiaries for subsistence allowance or educational assistance under VA’s benefits programs.

Treasury Regional Financial Centers (RFC) process and disburse payments, including Veteran’s benefits, Federal Salary, vendor, tax refunds, and other miscellaneous payments.

0105 Policies

010501 Establishing Roles

1. Authorizing Officials (delegators) are designated by the Head of Agency, delegations of this authority are reported to Treasury using the Bureau of Fiscal Service Form 2958 (FS2958).
2. VA will establish roles for Certifying Officers, Certifying Officials and Disbursing Officers, Treasury requires the use of form FS210 when designating individuals to perform these disbursement related functions. The FS210 must be signed by an individual who has been delegated on a FS2958 as an Authorizing Official.
3. Certifying Officers:
   1. Will be appointed through a delegation of authority from an Authorizing Official and designated specific duties as outlined on Treasury form FS210;
   2. Shall certify payments (e.g., batch payments) to Treasury using Treasury’s SPS system;
   3. Must be Federal Government employees and U.S. citizens;
   4. Cannot serve as both the Authorizing (Approving) Official and the Disbursing Officer; and
   5. May be monetarily liable for any payments resulting from illegal, improper, or incorrect certifications under 31 U.S.C. § 3528, and other applicable laws.
   6. Most Certifying Officers are located at the FSC or the VBA Finance Center at Hines.
4. Certifying Officials:
   1. Must be Federal Government employees with disbursing authority per 31 U.S.C. §§ 3321 and 3325 responsible for verifying information stated on the invoice, supporting records, the correctness of a certified invoice, and the legality of a proposed payment under the appropriation or fund involved; and
   2. Will obtain a certification of receipt and acceptance from a federal government employee who actually inspected the supplies or services, before certifying the invoice.
   3. May be monetarily liable for any payments resulting from illegal, improper, or incorrect certifications under 31 U.S.C. § 3528, and other applicable laws.
5. Disbursing Officers:
   1. Are appointed by VA’s Chief Disbursing Officers (through administrations and staff offices) with designated disbursing authority.
   2. Are primarily agent cashiers.
   3. Mainly process disbursements that cannot be made via electronic funds transfer (EFT).
   4. Certify disbursements and report public funds, as required by 31 U.SC. §§ 3321 and 3325.
6. Authorizing Officials will ensure that duties are properly segregated. For example, an employee cannot perform both certifying and disbursing functions.

010502 Contacting Treasury

1. The Department of Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) volume I, Part 4, Chapter 3000 provides procedures and forms needed to:
   • Inform Fiscal Service of the Head of Federal Entity;
   • Delegate designation authority to designating officials; and
   • Designate individuals to the positions of Certifying Officers (COs) for the Secure Payment System (SPS) and the Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP); SPS Data Entry Operators (DEO); and designated agents.
2. The FS2958 is used for the Head of the Agency (HoA) and Authorizing officials appointed by the HoA to delegate authority to expend federal funds, and to certify the disbursement of such funds through a Treasury disbursing office.
3. The FS210 is used for designating Certifying Officers (CO) and Data Entry Operators (DEO). FS210’s must be signed by individuals whose delegation of authority has been reported to Treasury on an FS2958.
4. FSC will submit the Head of Agency Self Designation FS2958, to Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service (FS) as well as the designations for the VA CFO, and the Heads of each Administration. Each Administration may submit their own lower delegations.
5. FSC will notify the Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service (FS) of all planned changes in organizational structure or operations that may affect disbursing services performed by the Treasury’s Regional Financial Center (RFC).

010503 Reporting of Irregularities

1. The Chief of the Local Finance Office will report irregularities to the Administration or Staff Office CFO.
2. Examples of reportable irregularities include but are not limited to:
   • shortages due to physical loss of public or patient funds;
   • illegal activities resulting from fraud or forgery;
   • alteration of vouchers and other improper practices;
   • improper accounting for receipts, disbursements, cash advances; or
   • any other irregularity which involves accountability to the United States.
3. Administration and Staff Office CFO’s will report irregularities affecting the accounts of Certifying/Disbursing Officers or VA employees, to the Executive Director of the FSC.
4. FSC will track irregularities and follow up periodically with station contacts until all irregularities are resolved or if required administrative/disciplinary action has been taken.
5. All documentation related to reported irregularities will be maintained for management review and audit purposes.

010504 Reporting Shortages of Funds

1. The director of a VA facility, station, or office may act as a settlement officer for claims arising from a shortage of funds valued at $199.99 or less for agent cashier funds, due to the action of an employee at his or her station, unless the loss involves the director.
2. The VISN, MISN or Regional Office chief of the finance office or Administration CFO will be the designated settlement officer for all claims arising from any loss involving a director of a VA facility, station, or office.
3. For shortage of agent cashier funds greater than $199.99, refer to VA Financial Policy Volume VIII, Chapter 3, Agent Cashier Accountability Policy, for VA’s financial policies relating to a fund shortage of this magnitude.

010505 Liability

1. VA’s Certifying Officers and Certifying Officials may be held monetarily liable for any payments resulting from illegal, improper, or incorrect certifications under 31 U.S.C.§ 3528, and other applicable laws.
2. Certifying Officers, Certifying Officials, and Disbursing Officers found to be monetarily liable may seek to have their debt waived, in accordance with VA’s Financial Policy Volume XII, Chapter 3, Employee Debt.
3. Certifying Officers and Certifying Officials acting in good faith and conformity with an authorized system of controls may not be held liable for any certification or payment that was not subject to specific examination because of the design of the control. Information showing that the system of controls upon which Certifying Officers or Certifying Officials rely is functioning properly and evidence that reviews are made periodically to determine that the automated systems are operating effectively and can be relied on to produce payments that are accurate and legal may support waiver of the debt.
4. In accordance with a 1991 Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion, as well as the 2015 VA Office of General Council (OGC) opinion, seeking relief from Comptroller General as required in 31 U.S.C. § 3528 is unconstitutional. Therefore, when an improper or incorrect payment is certified by a Certifying Officer or Certifying Official, a request for waiver of the related debt can be submitted by following the steps outlined in 31 U.S.C. § 3711 and VA’s Financial Policy Volume XII, Chapter 3, Employee Debt. Refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for additional details.

0106 Authorities and References

• United States Code (U.S.C.)
  • 31 U.S.C § 3321, Disbursing Authority in the Executive Branch
  • 31 U.S.C. § 3325, Vouchers
  • 31 U.S.C. § 3528, Responsibilities and Relief from liability of Certifying Officials
  • 31 USC § 3711, Collection and compromise
  • 44 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Records Management by Federal Agencies
• Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel Opinion (OLC) on the Authority of the Comptroller General to Relieve Certifying Officers from Liability
• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 7.503 Policy
• Treasury Financial Manual
  • Volume I, Part 4A: Payment-Related Activities within the Authority Granted to the U.S. Chief Disbursing Officer (CDO)
  • Volume I, Chapter 4700, Agency Reporting Requirements for the Financial Report of the United States Government
  • Volume I, Part 4, Chapter 3000, Requirements for Scheduling Payments Disbursed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Title 7, Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies, Fiscal Guidance
• VA Financial Policy Volume VIII, Cash Management
• VA Financial Policy Volume XII, Chapter 3, Employee Debt

0107 Rescissions

VA Financial Policy Volume VIII, Chapter 1 Certifying and Disbursing Officials/Officers, dated February 2023.

0108 Policy Approval

This policy was approved by the VA Chief Financial Officers’ Council on May 30, 2023.

Appendix A: Relief from Liability for Disbursing Officials and Agent Cashiers

There has been some confusion regarding relief from liability for Certifying Officers and Agent Cashiers. VA’s Office of Financial Policy researched two questions and concluded the following:

Question #1. Does VA have authority to relieve agent cashiers of liability pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3527?

Answer. No. We are unaware of any statutory or regulatory authority empowering VA to provide the relief envisioned by section 3527.

Discussion. 31 U.S.C. § 3527(a) provides that the Comptroller General “may relieve a present or former accountable official or agent of an agency responsible for the physical loss or deficiency of public money, vouchers, checks, securities, or records, or may authorize reimbursement from an appropriation or fund available for the activity in which the loss or deficiency occurred for the amount of the loss or deficiency paid by the official or agent as restitution, when—

1. the head of the agency decides that—
   1. the official or agent was carrying out official duties when the loss or deficiency occurred, or the loss or deficiency occurred because of an act or failure to act by a subordinate of the official or agent; and
   2. the loss or deficiency was not the result of fault or negligence by the official or agent;
2. the loss or deficiency was not the result of an illegal or incorrect payment; and
3. the Comptroller General agrees with the decision of the head of the agency.”

In a 2015 opinion, OGC analyzed a 1991 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that deemed the practice of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)/Comptroller General “relieving disbursing officials in the executive branch from liability under 31 U.S.C. § 3527” to be “unconstitutional.”  VAOPGCADV 5-2015 (attached).  In response, OGC recommended modifying VA policy to reflect the DOJ opinion, to handle agent cashier debts without GAO involvement and to resolve agent cashier debts “in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3711 ….”  Id.

However, we do not interpret the DOJ opinion, the OGC opinion or section 3527 to permit the effective transfer of the Comptroller General’s authority in section 3527 to the VA Secretary (SECVA).  The DOJ opinion previously held that delegation of relief authority to the Comptroller General, a member of the legislative branch, usurped the “Executive’s prosecutorial discretion and prevent[ed] the President from exercising … inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of executive branch officers.”  We are unaware of any authority or interpretations of law that would permit SECVA to stand in the shoes of the Comptroller General and make relief decisions.  See, e.g., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-275605 (attached)(stating that, pursuant to the GAO Act of 1996, the Comptroller General retains the authority under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3527, 3528, to grant relief to disbursing and certifying officers).  

Question #2.  If an agent cashier is found pecuniarily liable for a fund shortage, should VA take collection action in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards?

Answer. Yes.

Discussion. VAOPGCADV 5-2015 held that “debts arising from agent cashier irregularities or losses should be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3711.  38 C.F.R. § 2.6(d) delegates SECVA authority to take appropriate action to collect civil claims owed to VA in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) (38 C.F.R. § 1.900 et seq.) to the Assistant Secretary for Management (CFO).  That authority is further delegated in VA regulation and policy.  Accordingly, OFP’s proposed course of action to address these debts is as follows:

1. Upon a determination that the agent cashier is liable for an improper payment or other loss or deficiency, issue a debt letter to the individual who received the payment (if known) and take collection action in accordance with the FCCS and with VA regulation and policy;
2. Reduce any amount of agent cashier liability by the amount(s) collected from the recipient of the errant or fraudulent payment(s) (provided, however, that VA shall not recover more than the full amount of the errant or fraudulent payment(s), plus applicable interest and fees); and
3. Issue a debt letter to the agent cashier for any remaining outstanding amount(s) and take collection action in accordance with the FCCS and with VA regulation and policy.

Below is a timeline of key events, documents and decisions supporting the determination behind these conclusions.

• 8/5/1991 – DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion holding that “the Comptroller General cannot constitutionally relieve disbursing and certifying officers from liability.”  15 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 80, 1991 WL 833985 (O.L.C.).  
• 10/22/1991 – Comptroller General Decision B-243749 in which GAO purportedly delegates the authority to resolve losses of less than $3,000 to the agency in which the loss occurred.
• 3/17/1997 – Comptroller General Decision B-275605 states that, pursuant to the GAO Act of 1996, the Comptroller General retains authority to grant relief to disbursing and certifying officers under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3527 and 3528.  
• 4/2001 – Treasury Financial Management Service Manual of Procedures and Instructions for Cashiers states that individuals seeking relief from liability for losses greater than $3000 should obtain the advice of their component General Counsel’s office.
• 2/2006 – GAO Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, Ch. 9 states that GAO is aware of no authority or judicial opinion addressing the constitutionality of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3527 and 3528.  
• 2/16/2007 – Treasury Directive 32-04 follows the DOJ opinion stating that “it is not appropriate for the Department of Treasury or any of its officers or employees to … seek relief from the [Comptroller General].”   
• 1/15/2008 – Comptroller General Decision B-309267 (attached) denying the VA DAS for Finance’s request for relief of an agent cashier debt of $3280.00.
• Unknown/2009 – Office of Finance Bulletin 09GC1.03 amends VA Handbook 4010 to state that the DAS for Finance has the authority to determine whether or not relief should be granted under section 3527.
• 12/1/2009 – DAS for Finance issues opinion in Nilson case (not fwd’d to GAO) citing OF Bulletin 09GC1.03 and VA Handbook 4010, Section A., paragraph 5d., stating that amounts greater than $3000 must be referred to the DAS for Finance, and stating that the DAS for Finance has the authority to determine whether or not relief should be granted.
• 9/2010 – FP Vol. VIII, Ch. 3, Appendix M is published referencing procedures are IAW GAO Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, Chapter 9, Liability and Relief of Accountable Officers, and asserting that the DAS for Finance has the authority to determine whether a request for relief under 31 U.S.C. § 3527 will be forwarded to GAO.
• 8/9/2011 – VA Notice 11-04 rescinds VA Handbook 4010 and OF Bulletin 09GC1.03 and replaces both with FP Vol. VIII, Ch. 3.
• 1/29/2015 – DOJ verbal confirmation that the 1991 DOJ opinion is still valid and that VA should follow DOJ guidance not GAO guidance.
• 5/2014 – FP Vol. VIII, Ch. 3 is republished with Appendix M presumably unchanged (same original publication date listed).
• 2/13/2015 – VAOPGCADV 5-2015 delivered which follows the DOJ opinion and holds specifically that the case of a cashier seeking relief for a debt greater than $3000 may be handled internally by VA without involvement by the GAO.  The DAS for Finance denied relief and the debt was handled IAW the FCCS.   
• 4/8/2019 – Treasury Directive 32-04 reaffirmed by Treasury.

Appendix B: OGC Memorandum

Department of Veterans Affairs
Memorandum

VAOPGCADV 5-2015

Date:      February 13, 2015

From:   General Counsel (023)

Subj:       Authority to Compromise Agent Cashier Debts (VAIQ 7574750)

To:          Assistant Secretary for Management (004)

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Does the VA have the authority to compromise debts arising from thefts from a VA agent cashier?

CONCLUSION:

31 U.S.C. § 3711 provides VA with the authority to compromise and end collection on claims of the Government. 38 C.F.R. § 2.6(e)(4)(i) and (ii) delegates this authority to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to compromise, suspend, or terminate any claim not exceeding $100,000 involving loss of Government property resulting from negligence or other legal wrong. These references are silent on policies involving agent cashiers. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) asserts that 31 U.S.C. § 3527 provides it with the sole authority to relieve accountable officers, to include agent cashiers, from liability. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opined that 31 U.S.C. § 3527 is unconstitutional because a legislative body cannot issue interpretations of the law that are binding on the executive branch. Therefore, DOJ advises executive agencies to manage these debt matters internally without the involvement of GAO and the Comptroller General. We conclude that this matter may be handled by VA without involvement of GAO.

BACKGROUND:

On January 2, 2007, the agent cashier at the VA Salt Lake City Health Care System was assaulted and robbed of $18,100.70. The cashier had just closed the office for the evening, but reopened it at the request of an individual to make change for a five dollar bill. At that point the robbery occurred. (Attachment 1). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated the robbery but found insufficient evidence for prosecution. Neither investigation uncovered evidence that the agent cashier was involved in the robbery.

Therefore, on August 14, 2007, the case was closed. (Attachment 2). The funds were never recovered. On April 29, 2008, the Salt Lake City VAMC Director requested the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Financial Management to relieve the cashier of liability for the debt. (Attachment 1). On December 1, 2009, the DAS rejected the request and stated that the cashier could seek relief in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1496.¹ (Attachment 3).

On December 10, 2009, the Agency sent the cashier a notice of indebtedness stating that the $18,100.70 lost during the robbery would be recouped through a salary offset. This letter also included notice to the cashier of her right to a hearing. (Attachment 4). The cashier requested a hearing, and in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 1.983(10), the commencement of the salary offset was stayed. Pursuant to the VA’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment 5) with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from USPS was assigned to the matter. He has scheduled a hearing to take place on February 19, 2015 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

DISCUSSION

VA Authority to Compromise

1. The Office of Finance (047) has noted that since this is an agent cashier debt and not an “employee” debt, the USPS ALJ may not have jurisdiction over this matter and thus the hearing should not take place. 047 maintains that since the agent cashier is an accountable officer, only the Comptroller General can relieve the debt under 31 U.S.C. § 3527. (Attachment 6). The MOU is silent on this point and does not include a mechanism to remove a case from an ALJ’s purview once he or she has asserted jurisdiction. As noted above, the December 10, 2009 notice of indebtedness provided the cashier with a right to a hearing. Furthermore, on February 5, 2014, OGC provided an informal opinion to the Office of Finance stating that due process requires the Agency to give an employee an opportunity for a hearing before offsetting the employee’s pay. (Attachment 7).
2. VA Financial Policy Volume VIII, Chapter 3 was written to comply with 31 U.S.C. § 3527, which states:
   
   The Comptroller General may relieve a present or former accountable official or agent of an agency responsible for the physical loss or deficiency of public money, vouchers, checks, securities, or records, or may authorize reimbursement from an appropriation or fund available for the activity in which the loss or deficiency occurred for the amount of the loss or deficiency paid by the official or agent as restitution, when–
   
   1. the head of the agency decides that–
      1. the official or agent was carrying out official duties when the loss or deficiency occurred, or the loss or deficiency occurred because of an act or failure to act by a subordinate of the official or agent; and
      2. the loss or deficiency was not the result of fault or negligence by the official or agent;
   2. the loss or deficiency was not the result of an illegal or incorrect payment; and
   3. the Comptroller General agrees with the decision of the head of the agency.
      
3. When the robbery occurred, the matter was referred to the DAS in accordance with the statute and VA Financial Policy. The DAS reviewed the matter and determined that the cashier was at fault due to her failure to follow proper protocol. Therefore, VA did not refer the matter to the Comptroller General for relief.
4. Although VA has been working with the GAO in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3527, a 1991 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion states that since the GAO is a legislative entity, its practice of relieving disbursing officials in the executive branch from liability under 31 U.S.C. § 3527 is unconstitutional. (Attachment 8). The opinion notes, “the Comptroller General’s assertion of the power to relieve executive branch officials from liability for improper payments usurps the Executive’s prosecutorial discretion and prevents the President from exercising his inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of executive branch officers.”
5. This position is echoed in Treasury Directive 32-04 (February 16, 2007, reaffirmed September 8, 2011), which states, “the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has opined that the statutory mechanism is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to empower the Comptroller General [(CG)] to relieve executive branch officials from liability. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for the Department of Treasury or any of its officers or employees to request advance decisions or seek relief from the CG.” (Attachment 9). DOJ recently affirmed that it still maintains the position espoused by its opinion and that as an executive agency, the VA should follow this guidance and not that of the GAO.² The Attorney General has delegated the authority to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of OLC to provide authoritative legal advice to all the Executive Branch agencies. Therefore, VA should adhere to the OLC opinion.
6. Based on these circumstances, we recommend modifying VA policy to reflect that the DOJ opinion governs. Therefore, debts arising from agent cashier irregularities or losses should be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3711, which states:
   1. The head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency–
      1. shall try to collect a claim of the United States Government for money or property arising out of the activities of, or referred to, the agency;
      2. may compromise a claim of the Government of not more than $100,000 (excluding interest) or such higher amount as the Attorney General may from time to time prescribe that has not been referred to another executive or legislative agency for further collection action, except that only the Comptroller General may compromise a claim arising out of an exception the Comptroller General makes in the account of an accountable official; and
      3. may suspend or end collection action on a claim referred to in clause (2) of this subsection when it appears that no person liable on the claim has the present or prospective ability to pay a significant amount of the claim or the cost of collecting the claim is likely to be more than the amount recovered.
   2. (1) The head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency may not act under subsection (a)(2) or (3) of this section on a claim that appears to be fraudulent, false, or misrepresented by a party with an interest in the claim, or that is based on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws.

Based on the above analysis and the referenced regulations, we recommend that VA follow DOJ guidance and no longer refer agent cashier debts to the GAO.


/s/

Leigh A. Bradley

Attachments

---

[1] 28 U.S.C.A. § 1496 provides, “The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim by a disbursing officer of the United States or by his administrator or executor for relief from responsibility for loss, in line of duty, of Government funds, vouchers, records or other papers in his charge.”

[2] A DOJ attorney with the Justice Management Division confirmed this in a January 29, 2015 telephone call with a Staff Group Ill attorney.