oversight

Review of Civilian Pay, Travis AFB]

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-01-11.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

            -
   .
                UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE                                dJ
                                      REGIONAL            OFFICE                        /
                    143 FEDERAL       OFFICE   BUILDING         SO FULTON     STREET
                        SAN       FRANCISCO,       CALIFORNIA               94 102




Commander
60th Air Base Group
Travis Axe Force Base, Call
Dear Sir:
       We have completed a revxew of clvllxan pay and related
matters at Travis Air Force Base, Callfornla.    Thrs renew,
completed in October 1970, was made pursuant to the Budget and
Accouutlng Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accountxng and
Audltlng Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).
       The review covered (1) Internal Controls, (2) Internal
Revxew, (3) Within-grade Increases, (4) Salary Act of 1970,
 (5) Coordznated Federal Wage System, and (6) Severance Pay.
The primary purpose of the review is to provide lnformatxon on
Defense-l;nde adrmnlstratlon    of cxvlllan pay and allowances.
Employees accounts were krst selected on a staixstxal         sample
basis.     Errors disclosed In this sample will be combined with
those of other lnstallatlons      renewed, and the results considered
for statlstlcal     proJectxon for a Defense-wide report.    We did
not arrive at an error rate since the sample at any lndivldual
installation     is too small to proJect.    We did, however, expand
our renew at your installation       by selecting addltlonal  records
on a Judgment sample basis.
     Our review lnticated that the procedures and controls for
processing cltillan   payrolls were generally adequate. However,
a 1969 review by the Clvll Servxe Commxsslon of the conversxon
to the Coordinated Federal Wage System disclosed that a failure
to provide sufflclent   mdance and the lack of an independent
renew resulted in nune wage rate errors.
      We believe that In such non-routine actions as a wage
system revxslon or a retroactive  pay increase, Personnel and
Payroll employees should be given additlonal training and them
work more closely renewed and supervised than 1s necessary for
routme actions.
-   8.I
              ”




-         -
                                 .

                  Commander                                       -2-




                         During our review,   we    noted     a number of rmnor tiscrepancles     and
                  internal    control weaknesses      which    were discussed with appropriate
                  members at the working level         and    summarized at an exit conference
                  171th your staff on October       23rd.      Corrective   action has been either
                  taken or promised on Items        lasted,

                            Clvlllan
                            1.       Personnel does not have a pay document number
                  control  system by whxh Clvllran  Payroll can deterrmne if all such
                  documents have been received.

                         2. Quality Examlnatlons Accounts Control,    Accounting and
                  Finance coverage of the clvlllan   pay area has generally     been limited
                  to revleknng   time and attendance cards and reporting    dlscrepancles
                  found.
                         3.      One general schedule employee was given a wlthln-grade
                  increase       prior to completing the required creditable  servzce period.

                         4. One general schedule employee was given a wlthln-grade
                  Increase prior to receipt of documentation  showing that the super-
                  visor had determlned the employee’s level of competence was
                  acceptable.

                         5. Clvlllan     Personnel procedures do not provide for the
                  detertnmatlon     of the employee’s nonpay status prior to dlstrlbutlon
                  of the wlthln-grade      document outside of the Personnel Offlce.

                            6.
                           One employee’s retroactive    pay under the Salary Act of
                  1970 was incorrectly   computed because of transposltlon   error in
                  the hours shown In a pay status.

                        7. One employee’s retroactive     pay under the Salary Act of
                  1970 was incorrectly    computed because of the failure   to pay
                  night dlfferentlal    and an erroneous deduction of Federal Employee
                  Group LLfe Insurance.

                         8, Accounting and Finance has not establlshed    sufflclent
                  internal   controls over requests for waivers of claims for recovery
                  of erroneous payments of pay. This has resulted      In SIX requests
                  being delayed since May 1969.

                       These dlscrepancles  and internal    control weaknesses illustrate
                  the need for closer supervlslon    and review of work performed at
                  the workrng level by personnel and payroll       employees.
Commander                            -3-



     We would appreciate being advised of the actzons taken or planned
on the matters dlscussed In this report.   We wrsh to acknowledge the
cooperation and courtesies extended to OUT representatives  during
the renew.    A copy of this report 1s being sent to the Commander, Axr
Force Accounting and Finance Center, Denver, Colorado, and to the
USA.?'Auditor General, Norton Air Force Base, Callfornla.
                                            Very truly   yours,


                                           /~&-=.                 9
                                            A. PI. Clavelll
                                            Reglonal Manager


cc   Commander, AFYi&FCenter
     USAF AudItor General,
       sorton AFB