mission from a disbursing officer, it has been suggested that a decision be rendered for future guidance in these matters.

The facts of the present case involved Robert E. King, RD3, 443 25 78, U. S. Navy, who authorized an allotment of his pay in the amount of $18.80 a month for the purpose of making premium payments directly to a commercial life insurance company. On or about November 15, 1954, after the allotment had continued for 3 months, King states that he requested that the allotment be stopped and that he had no knowledge that the payments were not discontinued as requested. This is supported by a notation on his pay record for the period July 1 to December 31, 1954, signed by the disbursing officer then carrying his accounts, as follows: "I-Alot $18.80 stopped LP 11/54." While monthly allotment deductions from the member's pay were discontinued after November 1954, payments to the insurance company were not discontinued until after August 1955 when an audit revealed the erroneous payments. King's pay was then checked for $169.20, representing the amount of the overpayments for the 9-month period. The insurance company states that the allotment payment for September 1955 (presumably the August 1955 allotment payment) was refunded to King after receipt of notice the preceding month to cancel the policy. Mr. Flynn has stated that King had acted according to regulations in stopping his allotment. From a review of chapter 4, Part IV of the Navy Comptroller Manual, especially sections 044400 and 044402, it appears that King did everything required of him to stop the allotment. Thus, the question presented is whether the amount of such erroneous payments may be collected from a member who was unaware that the erroneous payments had continued to a commercial insurance company after the member had performed every act required of him to have the voluntary allotment discontinued.

In a decision to a disbursing officer, routed through the Chief of Finance, Department of the Army, on March 27, 1950, B-92033, we decided that an enlisted man was entitled to a refund of amounts deducted from his pay on account of erroneous payments to a commercial insurance company. Those overpayments had been made without the member's knowledge or fault. We there said that—

the Government, even through inadvertence, cannot thrust upon the enlisted man the burden of continuing his insurance by paying the allotment to the insurance company after the enlisted man has taken all steps required of him to accomplish discontinuance of the allotment and then, as a volunteer or inadvertent creditor, hold him liable.

We also indicated in the decision of March 27, 1950, that the member was not entitled to the refund if he had in fact taken some affirmative action to ratify the overpayments by accepting a benefit arising therefrom. A copy of that decision is enclosed.

While the record is incomplete as to what insurance benefits, if any, King has received, the insurance company involved has stated in a letter to the Navy Finance Center that King's insurance policy was not in force sufficient time to have cash value and, hence, no adjustment can be made. It would appear, therefore, that the rule of our decision of March 27, 1950, B-92033, is for application to the instant case. Hence, the sum of $169.20 checked in King's account, less $18.80 which was returned to him by the insurance company, should be refunded if otherwise correct.

[B-132861]

Appropriations-Subdivision of Budget Apportionments Into Allotments and Smaller Segments—Antideficiency Act Conformance

An administrative appropriation control regulation which provides for the distribution of budget apportionments into a small number of allotments to high level officials and then permits them to further subdivide the allotments into smaller segments called allowances for purposes of operating needs as distinguished from apportionment control but requires responsibility for the allowances to be continued in the allotment officials is in conformance with subsection (g) of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U. S. C. 665; and under such a regulation the creation of an obligation in excess of the dollar amount of an allowance would not be in violation of the penalty and reporting requirements of the Antideficiency Act.

To the Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, October 4, 1957:

Your letter of August 7, 1957, transmitted a proposed regulation by the Public Housing Administration establishing a system of administrative control of appropriated funds available to the Administration as required by subsection (g) of section 3679, Revised Statutes, as amended, 31 U. S. C. 665, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act.

The purpose of the regulation is to restrict obligations or expenditures against appropriations to the amounts available therefor and within the limit of apportionments made by the Bureau of the Budget; and to fix responsibility for any violation of the said act to high level officials who would bear the responsibility for apportionment control.

The proposed regulation provides for the administrative distribution of budget apportionments into "allotments" and permits subdivision thereof into segments called "allowances (expenditure targets)," if an allottee determines that they are needed for purposes of subsidiary control. An overobligation is defined in the regulation as an obligation incurred in excess of an apportionment or allotment-exclusive of allowances-with responsibility therefor fixed upon the allottee. A violation of the statute and the regulation takes place

whenever the amount of actual obligations exceeds the amount of the applicable apportionment or allotment. The question on which our advice is asked is whether the creation of an obligation in excess of an allowance would also constitute a violation where dollar amounts are used therein.

The nature and purpose of allotments and allowances are set forth in the proposed regulation, which are quoted and explained in your letter as follows:

"4d. Allotment. An authorization by the Director of the Budget Branch to authorized employees of the PHA to incur obligations within specified amounts pursuant to an appropriation or other statutory provision.

"4e. Allowance (Expenditure Target). A subdivision or classification below the apportionment control (allotment) level, issued by the Director of the Budget Branch, to authorized employees showing the expenditure pattern, or operating budget, they will be expected to follow in the light of the programs and activities contemplated by the over-all PHA Budget or plan of expenditure. The term also includes Personnel Ceiling Authorizations.

"8. Allotments. When apportionments have been made, it shall be the responsibility of the Director of the Budget Branch to make allotments of apportioned amounts, in writing, to PHA officials. The sum of such allotments shall not be in excess of the amount indicated in the apportionment document. "7. Allowance (Expenditure Target). Allowances, as distinguished from allotments, will be issued to administrative officials by the Director of the Budget Branch when the allottee determines that a need exists for subdivisions or classifications below the allotment level. Such allowances will be in terms of personnel ceilings or other authorizations, and/or operating budgets, for specfic purposes. When dollar amounts are used in an allowance, the recipient shall understand that they are guidelines in the nature of an operating budget and may be exceeded by very nominal amounts without obtaining a revision. In all cases where a material deviation is contemplated, either by way of an increase or decrease, the recipient must promptly report the facts to the Director of the Budget Branch, through the allottee, and if an increase is involved no action shall be taken until a revision of the allowance has been approved. Allowances stated in terms of personnel ceilings may not be exceeded even by nominal amounts; recipients of such allowances must conduct their operations within these ceilings, or obtain a formal revision thereof. If, for any reason, a revised personnel ceiling is indicated (either an increase or a decrease) the facts must be promptly reported to the Director of the Budget Branch, through the allottee."

Paragraph 8 contains provisions that allotments will be issued against all apportionments, that they will be reduced to the minimum number consistent with positive control over incurrence of obligations, that allottees must restrict obligations to the amounts available, and that the Comptroller will furnish to the Director of the Budget Branch a report of obligations incurred against all allotments. Holders of allowances are to maintain a simple memorandum record of commitments incurred and are to submit reports thereon the Budget Branch, through the allottee.

As indicated by these provisions, there are significant differences between allotments and allowances. The issuance of allotments is required by the regulation, whereas the issuance of allowances is permissive-in the discretion of the allottees; allotments are designated as constituting the apportionment control level, while allowances are designated as being below the control level; allotments are monetary limits on amounts of obligations which may be created, whereas allowances are merely guidelines or indications of the expenditure pattern or operating budget expected to be followed; whether allowances are issued or not, allottees are responsible for keeping obligations within the amounts of their allotments, whereas holders of allowances are merely accountable to the allottees who issued their allowances, and through them to the Director of the Budget Branch. In summary, the allowance is merely a management device which an allottee may in his discretion utilize to aid him in carry

appropriation control associated with subdivision of allotments into a multitude of pockets of obligational authority which cannot be exceeded, as a means of governing the rate of obligation, and to adopt other means as a basis of operating control.

The system of appropriation control in the proposed regulation, whereby a small number of allotments would be distributed to high level officials of the Administration who would bear responsibility therefor, is in conformity with the provisions of the 1956 amendment to section 3679, Revised Statutes, as amended. Section 13 of Bureau of the Budget Circular A-34, makes provision for agencies to distinguish classifications or subdivisions below apportionment control levels from the allotments and suballotments established for the purpose of controlling apportionments pursuant to the provisions of the said statute. The proposal to authorize allottees to subdivide allotments into allowances as a means of meeting their operating needs rather than to serve as an apportionment control also conforms to the provisions of the statute.

Accordingly, and in answer to your specific question, you are advised that the creation of an obligation in excess of an allowance under the circumstances outlined herein need not be regarded here as a violation of section 3679, Revised Statutes, as amended.

[B-132586]

Disbursing Officers-State Department and Other Overseas Agencies Appropriation Chargeable With Losses

Losses which are incurred by overseas disbursing officers performing disbursing functions for the Department of State as well as for other agencies pursuant to authority delegated from the Department of the Treasury under section 4 of Executive Order No. 6166, but which cannot be related to the function of any particular one or more of the agencies for which the disbursements are made, are required to be adjusted from the current appropriation of the Department of State available for the disbursing function at the time the adjustment is made, in the absence of a more specific appropriation for such adjustments; however, in the future disbursing losses may be considered as part of the cost of the disbursing function and considered in the determination of the reimbursement charges assessed the agencies using the disbursing service.

To the Secretary of State, October 7, 1957:

The Assistant Secretary-Controller of your Department by letter of July 15, 1957, presents for our consideration a question arising from relief granted by our Office under the provisions of Public Law 334, 84th Congress, approved August 9, 1955, 69 Stat. 626, 31 U. S. C. 82a-1, to Miss Hulda Christiansen for a loss of $2,000 which occurred while she was serving as United States Disbursing Officer at Kabul, Afghanistan.

Public Law 334 provides in pertinent part as follows:

Whenever it is necessary in the opinion of the Comptroller General to restore or otherwise adjust the account of any disbursing or accountable officer

or agent or former disbursing or other accountable officer for relief heretofore or hereafter granted under this Act, the amount of such relief shall, unless another appropriation is specifically provided therefor, be charged to the appropriation or fund available for the expense of the disbursing or other accountable function at the time the adjustment is effected.

Pursuant to the above provision, we requested that your Department furnish a citation to the appropriation or fund to be charged with the adjustment of the amount involved. The Assistant Secretary-Controller advised us by the letter of July 15 that while an adjustment appears necessary to clear Miss Christiansen's account, your Department has no appropriation specifically available for such adjustments. Hence, it would appear that under the provisions cited above, the "appropriation or fund available for the expense of the disbursing or other accountable function at the time the adjustment is effected" must be charged with the adjustment.

However, the letter of July 15 indicates that, while Miss Christiansen and the other United States Disbursing Officers are employees of the Department of State, they act under delegations of authority from the Treasury Department in accordance with the provisions of section 4, Executive Order No. 6166; that they receive and disburse moneys on behalf of other agencies of the Government as well as for the Department of State; and, that where services to the other agencies are sufficiently extensive to warrant reimbursement, charge is made therefor. The letter further indicates that the accountable balances of these disbursing officers are not generally identified by agency and hence it is impossible in this and similar cases to determine whether the losses are related to a Department of State function or to one of the many other agencies for which the United States Disbursing Officers perform disbursing services. In view of the above, the view is expressed that Department of State appropriations should not be held liable for losses experienced by the United States Disbursing Officers in such situations and our advice and assistance are requested to determine how relief for such losses should be treated.

We recognize that there may be some inequity in charging Department of State appropriations in the circumstances here related. However, since it is acknowledged that the losses involved cannot be related to the functions of any particular one or more of the many agencies for which the United States Disbursing Officers disburse, it is clearly equally inequitable to attempt to charge such losses against the funds of any particular agency. Nor does there appear any proper basis upon which the appropriations of the Treasury Department, except as one of the departments using the services of the United States Disbursing Officer, could be charged, that department having little control over the conditions under which the funds in foreign countries are safeguarded or disbursed. The situation arising under section 2

468020 O-58-17