UNITEDSTATESGEM~RALWC~WNTING OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE 7014 FEDERAL BUILDING 1961S~0m STWEFF DENVER,COLORADO 80202 February 19, 1971 Commander Department of the AU Force APOSan Franc~sco 9632% Attention. ACF Dear Sir Reference 1s made to your letter of January 21, 1971, commenting on our letter of December21, 19'70 reportmg the results of our audxc of rmlltary pay records and travel vouchers submtted by the account- mg and finance office, Yokota Air Base, for the period January 1 through September 30, 1969. In our letter of December21, 1970, we ldentxfled ll errors of various kmds, xncludxng three errors mnvolvxzg a wrong rate of per diem to membersperformzng operational type deployment Fnth their uints. In your reply, you state that l~l. these three cases the members were not travel% m a unxt move status and that It was not the mtent of the orders that the temporary duty involved be considered a unit move. You also &ate that all memberstraveled as sndlvlduals and pomnt out that each nember was charged and reuabursed bachelor offxersr quarters fees. We have ree-xarmnedthe three vouchers concerned 1~1the light of the explanations furnished, In each case, the orders show the purpose of the temporaq auty was for a number of membersfrom the sameunrt to perform operational type deployment. The orders further authorize utllxty (fatigue) uniform In troop movementon organlzatlonal or NiLl- tary Alrllft Commandcontract aucmft. In addltlon, the dally rate of per diem paid ($3.50) lnaxates Government meals and quarters were available to the membersinvolved. In thus connectxon, your attention 1s dxrected to paragraph 20442, Air Force Hanual 1'7'7-103, wherem It 1s stated that Government quarters (without charge) and mess% facll- ltles, when available, will be provided to membersperforwng temporary duty with their units. Ne asked representatives of the Dxrectorate of Plans and Syst~s, Air Force Bccountmg and Evlance Center, for Lhelr views 111these cases, They advised that membersperforming the temporary duty (TLY) xnvolved should be consrdered as on operatronal type deployment vJlth their mts. I , 50TH ANPWERSARY1921- 1971 c ozmlander APOSan Francxsco 96328 -2- They pomnted out that thx matter had been the subJect of dlscusslon and correspondence wx5h Paclfx AU Forces UI late 1969. Tney referred to 45 Camp. Gen. 599 as their basxs for determxtxng the TDY involved was u1 a unit move status. Also, xn Comptroller General declslon B-168806 dated FeDruary 27, 1970, xt 1s stated that ormss~on of the phrase Qravel 1s 3.n a Unit move statusi' UI the orders pro- vxdes no basis for the payment of per dzem at a higher rate than $1.90. For these reasons, ~.t 1s our vlewthat the payments made are erroneous as previously reported. The actrons taken to ensure correct and factual orders, to strel7gthen audit techniques and procedures, and to contmue on-the- Job tralnrng should aid xn elurunatlng tne type of errors encountered m our audit. We apprecxate the mterest drsplayed by you XI our report of audit. Srncerely yours, S, D. Md3lyea Regxonal I%nager cc Comptroller of the dir Force CommanderU-I Chief, PtlCAF Commander,AFAFC I Auditor General Representatxve, AFAFC
Response to Reply to Letter Report on Audit of Accounts for the Period January 1 Through September 30, 1969, APO San Francisco 96328
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-19.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)