Amadeo Martinez, Jr.-Denial of Waiver for Erroneous Payment

B-261628 Jun 13, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Waiver is denied for duplicate payments for 288 hours of restored leave. While there are no indications of fraud. He is not free of fault since he should have been aware that he had received a duplicate payment and been overpaid. The erroneous payment was essentially a duplicate payment within a 2-week period for the same 288 hours of restored leave. Employee is indebted in the gross amount of overpayment even though he did not directly receive all these monies which he is indebted to repay. Other amounts that were deducted on his behalf. That the agency is able to directly recoup amounts withheld for the employee. The matter of the employee's federal income tax liability is under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. View Decision Matter of: Amadeo Martinez, Jr.-Denial of Waiver for Erroneous Payment File: B-261628 Date: June 13, 1996 Waiver is denied for duplicate payments for 288 hours of restored leave. While there are no indications of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee, he is not free of fault since he should have been aware that he had received a duplicate payment and been overpaid. The erroneous payment was essentially a duplicate payment within a 2-week period for the same 288 hours of restored leave, and employee had a responsibility to set it aside, available for refund, while pursuing an explanation from responsible agency officials. Employee is indebted in the gross amount of overpayment even though he did not directly receive all these monies which he is indebted to repay, such as taxes, an allotment, health and life insurance, and other amounts that were deducted on his behalf. In the event, however, that the agency is able to directly recoup amounts withheld for the employee, such as life insurance, medicare, state taxes, or other benefits, then the amount of indebtedness owed by the employee shall be diminished accordingly. The matter of the employee's federal income tax liability is under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service, so the employee should discuss matters involving the withholding of federal income tax with the IRS office which services the area in which he resides. DECISION Amadeo Martinez, Jr., a former employee of the Special Accounts Division of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Columbus, Ohio, appeals our Settlement Certificate [1] denying his claim for waiver of his debt to the United States in the amount of $5,581.44 arising from duplicate payments within a 2-week period for 288 hours of restored leave. For the reasons stated below, we deny waiver. Background Mr. Martinez retired from DFAS on January 1, 1994. At the time of his retirement, he was entitled to 288 hours of restored leave, 252 hours of lump sum leave, and 104 hours of use or lose leave. On or about January 15, 1994, he received a payment via electronic transfer of funds into his bank account reflecting 252 hours of lump sum leave in the gross amount of $4,883.76, and 288 hours of restored leave in the gross amount of $5,581.44. He received a leave and earnings statement with this payment. After deductions, the net combined amount for the 540 hours leave was $6,352.56. A few days later, a hard copy U.S. Treasury check No. 63065359 dated January 20, 1994, was issued to him for the same 288 hours of restored leave in the gross amount of $5,581.44, as well as an additional payment for 104 hours of use or lose leave in the gross amount of $2,015.52. After deductions the net total was $4,713.91. In both the electronic funds transfer and the hard copy check, the gross amount reflecting 288 hours of restored leave was identical, i.e., $5,581.44. Agency officials informed Mr. Martinez by letter dated July 18, 1994, that he had incurred a debt for the erroneous payment in the net amount of $3,040.59 for the duplicate payment of 288 hours of restored leave. Mr. Martinez requested that the agency waive this amount on the basis that he was not aware of the overpayment. DFAS denied Mr. Martinez' request for waiver of overpayment in the net amount of $3,040.59, and Mr. Martinez appealed to our Office which determined that Mr. Martinez had been overpaid in the gross amount of $5,581.44 and denied waiver of this amount on the basis that Mr. Martinez was partially at fault for failing to make prompt inquiry to appropriate agency officials about the duplicate payments. Mr. Martinez now appeals the denial. Essentially, he reiterates his prior contention that he was unaware of the duplicate payment until he was asked to return it. Analysis Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec.