HEARING ON (H. R. 10238) A BILL "FOR THE RELIEF OF LIEUT. L. A. WILLIAMS, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY" HOUSE OF REFRESENTATIVES, Monday, January 7, 1929. The subcommittee met this day at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Clark Burdick, chairman, presiding. Mr. BURDICK. The next bill for consideration this morning is H. R. 10238, for the relief of Lieut. L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy. The clerk will read the bill and the report thereon by the Navy Department. (The clerk read as follows:) A BILL For the relief of Lieutenant L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the General Accounting Office is hereby authorized and directed to credit the accounts of Lieutenant L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $175.44, which amount represents funds deposited by Lieutenant L. A. Williams with the Treasurer of the United States by order of the Secretary of the Navy covering payments made by Lieutenant L. A. Williams to certain men of the United States Navy, these payments later disallowed by the Comptroller General of the United States. FOR THE RELIEF OF LIEUT. L. A. WILLIAMS, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY (H. R. 10238) 00-Williams, Leslie A/A18 (280131) L. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 6, 1928. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of January 31, 1928, transmitting the bill (H. R. 10238) for the relief of Lieut. L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows: The purpose of this bill is to authorize and direct the General Accounting Office to credit the account of Lieut. L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy, in the amount of $175.44 to reimburse him for funds deposited with the Treasurer of the United States by order of the Secretary of the Navy, covering payments made to cetain men of the Navy, which payments were later disallowed by the Comptroller General. It appears that the difference of $175.44 referred to in the attached correspondence represents errors in the fiscal accounts of Lieut. L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy, during the period fourth quarter, 1922, to second quarter, 1923, U. S. S. Nevada, and fourth quarter, 1923, to fourth quarter, 1924, destroyer divisions 30 and 33. It is noted that of this amount, $63.75 represents errors made in handling the accounts of personnel attached to the U. S. S. Nevada during the fourth quarter, 1922, to the first quarter, 1923. The errors in question were made in the course of routine payments and it is considered that they could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. Of the remaining difference, $27.25 represents errors in handling the accounts of enlisted men attached to destroyer division 33 during the period April 1, 1923, to August 3, 1923, which was prior to the Point Honda disaster of September 8, 1923. The discrepancies in these accounts are also routine in character and could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. Of the remaining difference, $21.32 represents errors in handling the accounts of enlisted personnel attached to destroyer division 30, during the fourth quarter, 1924. These errors were made several months after the Point Honda disaster when normal conditions prevailed in the destroyer squadrons and are likewise routine in character and could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. The remaining difference of $63.12 represents errors in handling the accounts of personnel attached to destroyer division 30 during the second quarter, 1924. These errors could have resulted from the stress and confusion following the Point Honda disaster. The bill H. R. 10238, if enacted, will result in cost to the Government in the sum of $175.44. The bill H. R. 10238 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that, owing to the great difficulties encountered in effecting pay roll adjustments during the second quarter, 1924, the Navy Department contemplated making a favorable recommendation with respect to relief legislation in the sum of $63.12, covering the overpayments during that period, but would recommend against such legislation in regard to the other items above mentioned, namely, those amounting to $63.75, $27.25, and $21.32. Under date of February 28, 1928, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised the Navy Department that the proposed recommendation is not in conflict with the financial program of the President. In view of the foregoing, the Navy Department recommends that the bill H. R. 10238 be enacted provided it is amended so as to make the amount to be paid $63.12 instead of $175.44. Sincerely yours, T. DOUGLAS ROBINSON, STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Miller is with us this morning, and we will now hear him. Mr. MILLER. As has been stated, this bill is for the relief of Lieut. L. A. Williams, Supply Corps, United States Navy. Mr. BURDICK. Has it been recommended by the Navy Department? Mr. MILLER. It is recommended by the Navy Department to the extent of $63.12. I have here [indicating] a very lengthy statement by Lieutenant Williams concerning these discrepancies. I am unadvised whether we should encumber the record with all these statements he has sent me. Mr. VINSON. I suggest that you put in the record a statement as to how these shortages occurred. Mr. MILLER. The following is correspondence concerning this matter: SUPPLY OFFICE, UNITED STATES NAVAL HOSPITAL, From: Lieut. L. A. Williams (S. C.), United States Navy. Via: Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, commanding officer, naval hospital, Subject: Request for congressional action to remove $85.91 disallowances in fiscal accounts of L. A. Williams, lieutenant (junior grade), C. S., United States Navy. Reference (a) Article 95, Navy Regulations, 1920. (b) General Accounting Office Certificate M-8424-N, items 42, 70, 72, 78, and 86. (c) General Accounting Office Certificate M-10306-N, items 139, 148, (d) Paragraphs 1953 to 1966, inclusive, Supply Officers' Manual. (f) S. & A. first indorsement L-10-5(1)/OS-(1569) (FC) of November (g) General Accounting Office letter A-LCB-106, Audit Division of December 1, 1926. Inclosure: Two. 1. It is requested that a bill be submitted to Congress during the present session for the purpose of removing the sum of $85.91 now appearing as disallowances in my fiscal accounts under references (b) and (c). 2. There is inclosed herewith a detailed statement marked A showing items disallowed and reasons for such disallowances. In support of this statement there is also submitted an outline of the conditions under which disallowances were incurred by me from September 27, 1923, to June 30, 1924, inclusive, which is marked "B." 3. In accordance with the request of the Comptroller General under reference (g) it is requested that his office be advised of action taken and it is further requested that the same information be forwarded to me. L. A. WILLIAMS. STATEMENT BY ITEMS (Certificate M-8424–N, second quarter, 1924) Item 42: Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $12.50. 114, O. E. Lasater, S. 2c. Credited pay as messman at $5 per month, October 1 to December 31, 1923, $15. Should be per C. O. Order filed October 1 to 15, 1923, at $5 per month, $2.50. (Debt reported.) This man was given special order discharge on April 26, 1924. Overpayment was due to crediting his accounts $5 per month for messman money from October 16 to December 13, 1923, in error. On the day he was discharged he deposited $3.17 to pay other indebtedness to the Government, but the administrative analysis for the second quarter, 1924, showing this overpayment was not received until the day following the date of his discharge. This error was not discovered due to lack of time and sufficient personnel to properly check entries on the roll. Item 70: U. S. S. Henshaw. Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $20. 46, P. Marovilloya, F. 3c. Transferred November 15, 1923, to deserters roll with balance overpaid $56.96. Overpayment partially due to money payment of $20, November 3, 1923, and allotment of $25 paid for November, 1923; $45 less amount collected and deposited by G. G. Seibels, certificate No. 56300 dated March 11, 1926, $25. (Debt reported.) This man deserted November 15, 1923, before submitting claim for reimbursement for clothing lost in marine disaster and clothing receipt in amount of $50.82 carried as clothing on hand was charged to his account, making his account overpaid in date of desertion. Item 72: Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $28.82. 51, J. T. Marrs, S. 2c. Transferred September 30, 1923, to deserters' roll with balance overpaid $28.82. Overpayment due to money payments made in September on U. S. S. Young, September 13, 1923, $10; September 29, 1923. $25. (Debt reported.) This man deserted September 30, 1923, before submitting claim for clothing list in marine disaster. Clothing drawn by him in the sum of $34.10 was charged to his account, resulting an overpayment of $28.82 on date of desertion. Item 78: U. S. S. Meyer. Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $1.80. 94, C. R. Johnson, F. 2c. Amount of "Request for checkage from F. J. Manley, N. H. San Diego, dated September 7, 1923, for $1.80. Certified as accomplished by you on October 13, 1923. Checkage not made. Evidence of checkage is required." Request for checkage in the sum of $1.80 against the account of this man was received from Lieut. F. J. Manley (S. C.), United States Navy, which checkage was signed as accomplished by me and returned to Lieutenant Manley. Checkage was not made, however, and due to lack of time and personnel error was not discovered until after this man was discharged. No reply is made to letters addressed to him. Item 86: U. S. S. Moody. Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $1.47. 86, Wilford Quinn, S. 2c. Transferred to deserters' roll October 20, 1923, with balance overpaid of $1.47. Overpayment caused by money payment October 18, 1923. This overpayment is due to charging a clothing receipt for $4.60 against his accounts on date of desertion, October 20, 1923. This error was due to the clothing receipt being misplaced and not discovered until after desertion. There were receipts for $40,000 in clothing issues in the office, so the misplacing of a receipt under the conditions outlining in inclosure (b) was not impossible. (Certificate M-10306-N) Item 139: U. S. S. Doyen. Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $2.70. 43, Floyd W. Hughes, S. 2c. Checked pay May 7-14, 1924, eight days, at $36 per month, $9.60. Should be checked May 7-15, at $36 per month, plus $5 per month. Mess pay, $12.30. Said to have been checked on deserters' roll No. 49614, third quarter, 1925 by B. L. Lankford, per reply dated January 27, 1925, but account shows overpayment on transfer to deserters' roll. This overpayment represents error in checking one day's pay and nine days' money for absence without leave. This error was due to lack of time to check entries on the rolls. Item 148: U. S. S. J. F. Burnes. Disallowed in part March 13, 1926. P. N. 1924. $5.72. 74, Glenn Nathaniel Deater, S. 2c. Account transferred to deserters' roll No. 50309 as of June 2, 1924, with balance overpaid $5.72. The overpayment was caused by a money payment of $25 on June 2, 1924. This error due in part to drawing clothing prior to desertion and in part to lack of time to check entries on the roll. Item 149: U. S. S. Henshaw. Disallowed in part January 22, 1926. P. N. 1924. $12.90. 149, Oscar A. Shoemate, S. 2c. Amount overpaid on date of transfer of account to deserters' roll, on May 9, 1924. Overpayment caused by cash payment of $95 for period from March 11 to May 9, 1924. reported.) (Debt This man was taken up with $36 due and unpaid instead of being taken up with monthly pay of $36. The overpayment was a result and the error was due to lack of time to properly check the entries on the roll. He deserted May 9, 1924, and refund can not be obtained. GENERAL STATEMENT On February 1, 1923, I assumed duty as supply officer of Destroyer Division 33, United States Battle Fleet, in accordance with orders issued by the Bureau of Navigation. This division consisted of the following vessels: U. S. S. S. P. Lee, Young, Nichols, Woodbury, Wm. Jones, and Zeilin. On September 8, 1923, four vessels of this division, namely, the U. S. S. S. P. Lee, Young, Nichols, and Woodbury, together with three vessels of another division, were wrecked off Point Honda, Calif., by grounding in a fog. The enlisted personnel of these seven vessels were transported to the destroyer base, San Diego, Calif., and on arrival were immediately issued necessary clothing by the supply officers of the U. S. S. Rigel, Melville, Altair, and the naval training station, San Diego These issues averaged $60 per man and totaled approximately $40,000. As a result of this disaster, Destroyer Division 30 was commissioned and consisted of the following vessels: U. S. S. Meyer, Moody, Sinclair, Doyen, McCawley, and Henshaw. The U. S. S. Decatur was also commissioned to replace the squadron leader-the U. S. S. Delphy. The personnel of the wrecked vessels were assigned to this new division and under orders from the bureau I closed the accounts of Destroyer Division 33 on September 26, 1923, and took up the accounts of Destroyer Division 30 plus the U. S. S. Decatur, squadron leader, on September 27, 1923. On reporting for duty I found the vessels preparing for commissioning, and the office space assigned to me was the chart house of the U. S. S. Sinclair. It was approximately a month before the necessary work on the vessels was completed and as a result there were electric leads, air hole, and tools in the office and A workmen were continually in there making adjustments and connections. dispatch was forwarded to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts requesting assignment of one additional yeoman, which request was allowed, giving me three yeomen for an office force. All the accounts of the wrecked vessels were transferred to me, together with approximately $40,000 in clothing receipts. In accordance with references (d) and (e) of basic letter these clothing receipts were not charged on the roll but were carried as clothing on hand until claims could be prepared. There were no claim blanks available in the district and despatches were forwarded to navy yard, Mare Island, and naval operating base, Hampton Roads, for necessary quantities. About November 20, 1923, all claims had been prepared. As the issues were not charged it left money due each man and payment of this money was made to them. Before blanks were received several men deserted, which resulted in disallowances for the above payments of money. The regulations required that issues on approved claims be made in kind, i. e., if jumper, blue, was claimed lost then issue must be jumper, blue. This caused a great amount of routine work, as it was necessary to prepare a "statement of issues" and "statement of clothing due" for each man when transferred and also at the end of each quarter. In addition to the work caused by the marine disaster it was necessary to take up the accounts of the U. S. S. J. F. Burnes and U. S. S. Percival due to the desertion of Lieut. E. R. Brown (S. C.), United States Navy. The accounts of the following vessels were taken up and transferred during the period September 27, 1923, to June 30, 1924: Taken up: U. S. S. Decatur, September, 1923. U. S. S. Young, September, 1923. U. S. S. Wm. Jones, September, 1923. U. S. S. Meyer, May, 1924. U. S. S. McCawley, June, 1924. This meant the taking up of approximately 1,100 accounts and the transfer of 1,700 accounts. With a turnover of about 15 per cent monthly due to individual transfers it meant a total handling of approximately 5,000 accounts with an office force of three men and an office space of about 15 by 20 feet. work, together with the handling of claims, was more than could be efficiently performed under the conditions and errors occurred. This All disbursements were made in good faith and with no intention of defrauding the Government and considering the total amount of money disbursed during this period the losses were very small. L. A. WILLIAMS. |