TN 19 (03-93)

A. Introduction

In most cases, the file shows that an error occurred, e.g., delay in awarding entitlement, erroneous termination, failure to bill for or deduct premiums, disallowance reversed on appeal. In other cases, an allegation by the beneficiary may be the first indication that an error occurred.

B. Policy - Substantiation of alleged errors

The individual may allege that his/her rights were prejudiced due to misinformation received. Such allegations must be substantiated.

The Government employee or agent identified as having given the misinformation should report his/her recollection of the event. If the employee cannot recall the interview or discussion, he/she should nevertheless report on the probability that he/she gave the misinformation or misadvice that the individual claims receiving.

If the Government employee or agent cannot be identified for any reason, a statement should be made by the supervisor or other person in authority as to the likelihood of such an error. NOTE: This statement may be based on the supervisor's observations of the type of errors known to have been committed in the FO, the fact that there was a preponderance of trainees who could have interviewed the beneficiary when the alleged error occurred, etc.

In cases involving alleged misinformation from a TSC, FO management should assess the likelihood that misinformation was given.

C. Policy - Required documentation

Equitable relief may not be granted unless the file contains documentary evidence. The evidence can be in the form of statements from employees, agents, or persons in authority that the alleged misinformation, misadvice, misrepresentation, inaction, or erroneous action actually occurred.

In the absence of such personal knowledge, the evidence can consist of a statement that there is a strong likelihood based on personal knowledge or prior experience that an error occurred.