In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
PAUL R. CLINE                                                       )
                                                                               )
Rt. #3, Box 463                                                      )
                                                                               )
at                                                                            )
                                                                               )
Attalla, AL 35954-9722                                          )  P. S. Docket NO. DCA-71

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Paul R. Cline, Pro Se
                                                                               Rt. #3, Box 463
                                                                               Attalia, AL 35954-9722

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Ronald H. Drain, Esq.
                                                                               Labor Relations Representative
                                                                               Human Resources
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               351 24th Street
                                                                               Birmingham, AL 35203-9401

By timely petition filed on June 26, 1990, Petitioner, Paul R. Cline, requested an oral hearing on a notice to him that he was indebted to Respondent, United States Postal Service, in the amount of $3,897.71 based upon a vending machine shortage. The notice further advised that Respondent intended to withhold approximately $172.50 from each of Petitioner's pay checks until the debt was satisfied.

Respondent's position is that Mr. Cline was responsible for the shortage because he failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties. Petitioner disagrees and contends that he had nothing to do with the loss. He also contends that the Postal Service failed to give him proper training.

A hearing was held at Petitioner's request in Birmingham, AL. Petitioner presented his own testimony and that of Postal employee David Wilbourn. Respondent presented the testimony of Postal employees Hoyle Hayes and Shelby Markiewicz.

Both parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been duly considered. To the extent indicated below, proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted; otherwise, they have been rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the evidence. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below are based on the entire record herein, including observation by the Administrative Law Judge of the witnesses and their demeanor, the briefs, exhibits, and other relevant evidence adduced at the hearing:

In March of 1987 Petitioner Paul R. Cline, who had supervisory responsibility for thirteen mail carriers at the Boaz, AL Post Office, was assigned accountability for certain vending machines by Postmaster Hoyle Hayes (Tr. 9, 15, 26-27). This accountability was for three vending machines in a single module: (1) a booklet vending machine which dispensed books of 25¢ (previously 22¢) stamps, (2) a stamp vending machine which dispensed individual 25¢ and 1¢ stamps from coils, and (3) a small currency changer which accepted $5 and $1 bills (Tr. 9-10, 18). The booklet machine held about 200 books worth a total of $600. The two coils of 25¢ stamps in the coil machine held about 3,000 stamps each, and each was worth $750. The coil of 1¢ stamps held the same number of stamps and was worth $30 (Tr. 11).

Petitioner did not receive any formal training on the machines when he received the accountability (Tr. 22). The Postmaster did not think Petitioner needed any training since he had been an Officer in Charge (OIC) at another office where he had been trained in accountability and finance and was responsible for the main stock (Tr. 22, 68, 70-71). An OIC has his or her own accountability and assures that all the other accountabilities are in the office daily, and makes timely audits of the employees (Tr. 31).

The above machines were out of order several times a week due to malfunctions (Tr. 11, 18). When this happened, Petitioner would have to service the machine (Tr. 18). If Petitioner was not at work when this happened, then Mr. Hoyle would have to obtain the keys from the safe and fix the machines (Tr. 11, 15). Petitioner does not attribute any shortage in accountability in this case to malfunction of the machines (Tr. 80).

Postmaster Hoyle had previously had the accountability for these machines (Tr. 11, 15). After the accountability was transferred to Petitioner, the spare keys were kept locked in the safe (Tr. 17). Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, the keys were not kept in the Postmaster's desk drawer. Moreover, even if they had been, Petitioner admits that that it would have been unlikely that someone could have obtained the keys from that location and stolen from the machines (Tr. 81).

While Mr. Hoyle was Postmaster, at about the time in 1988 that the 22¢ stamp was replaced by the 25¢ stamp, he and Petitioner performed an audit on the machines which revealed a shortage of about $1,000. Petitioner opined at the time that one or more rolls of stamps may have fallen down into a hole in the machine, but the two men did not inspect the machine to test that theory at that time "(Tr. 12, 63). Petitioner later discovered that no stamp coils had fallen into the machine (Tr. 67).

At a later time, Petitioner told Mr. Hoyle that a witness had seen someone tampering with the machine by sticking a piece of paper in the changer, and that coins were falling out (Tr. 13-14). However, it has not been shown that this was anything other than suspicious behavior.

Each of the vending machines had a small box which would receive coins. When the boxes filled up, Petitioner was responsible for separating the coins, putting them in rolls, and taking the money to the bank for deposit. Postmaster Hoyle told Petitioner several times that the money should not be left in a place where "anybody had access to it" (Tr. 24, 27-28). In spite of this admonition, Petitioner placed the money in the vault, which was opened early in the morning and closed every night. During the day, when the four clerks at the post office would enter the vault to get their stamps (which were separately locked within the vault), the boxes of money were unsecured and in plain view (Tr. 25-26). Petitioner could have removed the coins from the machine and deposited them in the bank on the same day, as his predecessor had done, or placed the coins in a secure stamp drawer or in the safe (Tr. 28-29).

An audit of Petitioner's accountability on January 23, 1990, revealed that he was $3,897.71 short (RX-4; Tr. 32). He admittedly had not kept track of the numbers of stamps sold on the machines' counters (Tr. 32, 35). But Petitioner knew there was a shortage before the audit, estimating it to be about $2,500 (Tr. 65). His 1412 forms revealed that his accountability gradually increased over a two-year period. Since it should have stayed even as more stamps were added and cash was deposited to the bank, it was obvious that there was a gradually increasing shortage from the machines (Tr. 33). Petitioner states that "it kept building up and you don't confront someone and say let's go check that machine or whatever" (Tr. 63). He also failed to notify the Inspection Service of the shortage (Tr. 72).

Another audit was made in May 1990 which showed no shortage. Petitioner alleges that no additional shortage appeared because "I had received a little more training and understood it more thoroughly" and that the machine was now "being operated properly." Although Petitioner was attempting to blame the loss on a lack of training, the statement is also a tacit admission that he had not performed his duties properly prior to the January 1990 audit (Tr. 57).

On June 1, 1990, Petitioner was sent a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act. The instant Petition was filed to contest that notice.

Section 132 of Postal Service Handbook F-1 provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper have been consigned are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties. Petitioner has the burden of proving that he exercised such reasonable care.

Petitioner is a supervisory employee with experience in accountability. Having previously worked as an Officer in Charge, he was well aware of the importance of strictly accounting for the stamp inventory consigned to him. It was incumbent upon him to keep a close eye on the stamps and cash in the vending machines for which he was strictly accountable. This he did not do. Failing to comply with the Postmaster's instructions to secure the money prior to depositing it in the bank, he left boxes of money in an unsecure place where other employees could easily take it. His argument that he was not given the key to the safe, or a place in the vault, is rejected - they would have been given to him if he had asked for them. He also failed to keep track of the counters on his machines which would have shown him exactly how many stamps had been sold. Further, he did notice a gradual increase in his shortage over a long period of time, but failed to confront the Postmaster with this information in order that an appropriate solution could be obtained.

Petitioner argues that the Postal Service is to blame because it failed to provide him with adequate training. This is not an adequate defense. The issue is whether Petitioner exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. He failed to do so. Moreover, as a prior OIC, he had experience in accountability and knew that he was strictly accountable. He should have made the effort to keep track of his inventory and secure the cash from the machines. He did not need a formal training course to perform these basic procedures, and if he did not know how to do something, he should have inquired.

Petitioner also speculates that someone stole the money from the machines in the lobby, and points to the statement of a witness who saw someone who appeared to be tampering with the machine. However, the evidence does not establish a theft occurred. Moreover, the shortage in this case was gradually increasing over a long period of time rather than a sudden occurrence which would have been more likely if it had been a theft.

Since Petitioner is strictly accountable for the shortage in question and failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties with respect to the vending machines for which he was responsible, the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets is sustained and the Petition is dismissed.

Accordingly, Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $3,897.71. The amount of $172.50 will be deducted from Petitioner's pay each pay period until the debt is collected.

Randolph D. Mason
Administrative Law Judge