In the Matter of the Petition by:

PASQUALE J. STANGO,
1665 West 11th Street,
at
Brooklyn, NY 11223-1139

P.S. Docket No. AO-8

Grant, Quentin E. Grant, Chief Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Pasquale J. Stango, 87 Avenue S,
Brooklyn, NY 11223-2538

APPEARANCE FOR POSTAL SERVICE: James M. Parrott, Esq.,
Inspector/Attorney, Postal Inspection Service,
United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-2181

INITIAL DECISION BACKGROUND

On January 20, 1989, the Postal Inspection Service issued to Pasquale J. Stango a letter of demand for payment in the amount of $43,585.00 representing losses sustained by the Postal Service through the fault of Mr. Stango. On reconsideration requested by Mr. Stango, the demand was renewed by the Regional Chief Inspector in his letter of March 28, 1989. The instant proceeding was commenced by a request for a de novo evidentiary hearing, dated April 17, 1989, filed on Mr. Stango's behalf with the Regional Chief Inspector and docketed by the Recorder on January 11, 1990, as a petition for hearing.

By order dated August 31, 1990, for reasons detailed therein, Mr. Stango's request for an oral hearing was denied. That order gave the parties until September 25 to supplement the record with documents and written argument. In particular, Mr. Stango was directed to file by that date a copy of an alleged agreement relied on by him to bar this proceeding and a statement setting forth specific relevant reasons, other than such agreement, why he is not responsible for the Postal Service's losses underlying its demand for payment. Nothing was filed by either party in response to the August 31 order.

The matter is ready for initial decision on the written record pursuant to § 966.9 of the Rules of Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Pasquale J. Stango was employed by the U. S. Postal Service from November 22, 1971, until his resignation effective March 18, 1988. His last position in such employment was Supervisor, Building Equipment Maintenance in the Brooklyn General Post Office, Brooklyn, NY.

2. On January 20, 1989, the Postal Inspection Service issued a letter to Pasquale J. Stango demanding payment of the amount of $43,585.00 covering his indebtedness to the Postal Service for losses resulting from his "financial depredation" while employed by the Postal Service. The letter advised Mr. Stango that unless his remittance was received within 30 days the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would be requested to set off the amount of the indebtedness from his contributions to the Retirement Fund or Annuity. It also advised him of his right to request reconsideration if he believed the collection action to be unjustified.

3. At the request of Lawrence A. Vogelman, an attorney then acting on behalf of Mr. Stango, the Inspection Service furnished a breakdown of the amount demanded, as follows:

False billing                                                  $22,500.00
Gratuities/bribes received                               8,000.00
Personal sale of Postal Property                   10,325.00
Postal Property converted to
personal use                                                    1,050.00
Two bounced personal checks                       1,710.00

TOTAL                                                          $43,585.00

4. On Mr. Stango's request for reconsideration, the Regional Chief Inspector, on March 28, 1989, affirmed the original determination and demand for payment, also advising him of his right to a de novo evidentiary hearing. In Mr. Vogelman's letter of April 17, 1989, a request for such a hearing was made. In January 1990 this request was forwarded by the Inspection Service to the Recorder who, on January 11, docketed the request as a petition for hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 966.

5. Along with Mr. Stango's request for hearing, the Inspection Service filed with the Recorder several other documents including investigative memorandums dated September 23 and November 30, 1988, setting forth in detail the facts underlying the five categories and amounts of losses specified in finding 2, above. Copies of all these documents were furnished by the Recorder to Mr. Stango who received them on January 23, 1990.

6. The petition as docketed did not comply with the require- ments set forth in § 966.4 of the Rules of Practice. By order dated February 6, 1990, Mr. Stango was given the opportunity to file a petition conforming to the rule.

7. On February 16 the Recorder received from Mr. Stango a handwritten document entitled Petition for Review Under 39 C.F.R. Part 966. The petition requested an oral hearing in New York City but failed to state the evidence he would produce or provide a list of witnesses he expected to call as required by the rules. The only ground stated in the petition for opposing the Inspection Service's debt determination was that this proceeding constitutes a second prosecution for a crime to which he had pleaded guilty in September 1988 in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, receiving a suspended sentence without provision for restitution, with an agreement by the government that he would not be further prosecuted.

8. Mr. Stango's petition contained no denial that he caused and is responsible for the losses set forth in finding 2 and described in the investigative memorandums mentioned in finding 5, above.

9. Following receipt of his petition in February 1990, several orders were issued directing Mr. Stango to file, in support of his request for an oral hearing, the information concerning evidence and witnesses required by the rules. Finally, on August 8, 1990, he complied with these orders by way of a letter listing as his witnesses Postal Inspector M. J. Wiley and Assistant U. S. Attorney Jerome Roth, stating that he would seek to prove through them that his attempts to resign from the Postal Service in November 1987 and April 1988 had been thwarted, that his requests for return of his retirement contributions had been denied on the basis that he was under investigation, and that he was kept on paid status as a supervisor for 9 months but did not receive any pay checks during that period. Mr. Stango also stated that he would seek to show that the Postal Service is holding back money due him, using illegal tactics to do so.

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1. None of the documents filed by or on behalf of Petitioner Stango state, or show an intent to prove, relevant facts or circumstances tending to discredit the determination by the Inspection Service of his indebtedness to the Postal Service. Mr. Stango, although directed to do so, has not filed a copy of the agreement which he claims bars this proceeding. However, it is obvious from the context in which the agreement is mentioned by Mr. Stango that it dealt with further criminal prosecution and not with an administrative proceeding to recover the losses to the Postal Service involved herein. Other defenses asserted by Mr. Stango, such as refusal of the Postal Service to accept his resignation or to pay him for nine months of service as a supervisor, are not valid defenses to the determination by the Inspection Service of Mr. Stango's indebtedness in the amount of $43,585.00 for losses he wrongfully caused to the Postal Service. I conclude that such indebtedness was properly found.

 2. There should be credited to Mr. Stango on account of this indebtedness amounts owed him by the Postal Service, if any, not previously credited in arriving at the amount thereof.