An amount recorded as an obligation that exceeds the appropriation is ___ evidence of an ADA violation but is not ___ because it could have been over recorded and once adjusted it may not be an over-obligation but is still an ADA.

An amount recorded as an obligation that exceeds the appropriation is ___ evidence of an ADA violation but is not ___ because it could have been over recorded and once adjusted it may not be an over-obligation but is still an ADA.

• A. Prima Facie; conclusive
• B. Conclusive; Prima Facie
• C. Prima Facie; not conclusive
• D. Not evidence; conclusive

Answer: (A)

This item tests how evidence is categorized in Anti-Deficiency Act situations. When an obligation on the books exceeds what an appropriation allows, the record itself points to a potential violation—this is prima facie evidence: it appears to indicate a violation at first look and deserves further review. But it is not conclusive evidence because the overage could be the result of clerical errors, timing differences, or later adjustments. After correcting the record, the obligation might no longer exceed the appropriation, so the initial overage isn’t definitive proof of a real over-obligation. Nonetheless, the matter still raises ADA concerns because the underlying issue of obligating beyond available funds can be a violation, even if the over-recorded amount is corrected. So the statement is best filled with prima facie for the first part and conclusive for the second part.

This item tests how evidence is categorized in Anti-Deficiency Act situations. When an obligation on the books exceeds what an appropriation allows, the record itself points to a potential violation—this is prima facie evidence: it appears to indicate a violation at first look and deserves further review.

But it is not conclusive evidence because the overage could be the result of clerical errors, timing differences, or later adjustments. After correcting the record, the obligation might no longer exceed the appropriation, so the initial overage isn’t definitive proof of a real over-obligation. Nonetheless, the matter still raises ADA concerns because the underlying issue of obligating beyond available funds can be a violation, even if the over-recorded amount is corrected.

So the statement is best filled with prima facie for the first part and conclusive for the second part.