In the Matter of the Petition by:                               )
                                                                               )
EDWARD E. MARDANT, JR.                                   )
2225 1st Street, N.E.                                              )
                                                                               )
at                                                                            )
                                                                               )
Birmingham, AL 35215-4601                                  )  P. S. Docket No. DCA-124

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Fred Guarino
Procurement Specialist
351 24th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203-9106

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: John Shalhoop Labor Relations Representative 351 24th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

This proceeding was initiated by the timely filing of a Petition by Edward E. Mardant, Jr., for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a) and 39 CFR Part 961. Petitioner appeals the determination of P. Greg Barlow, Manager, Technical Sales & Service, who alleges in a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated March 4, 1992, that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Postal Service ("Respondent") in the amount of $1,316.00. Petitioner admittedly signed for stamp stock in this amount, but wishes to be excused from liability.

A hearing was held by the Administrative Law Judge on May 5, 1992, in Birmingham, AL. Both parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, and examine and cross-examine witnesses. Petitioner presented the testimony of Paul Gregory Barlow and Ronald M. Roseberry. Respondent presented the testimony of Phil Edwards. Both parties presented documentary 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 arguments, stipulations, exhibits, and other relevant evidence adduced at the hearing:

FINDINGS OF FACT

In February of 1991, Harlo Paint Contract Station sent a package of stamps by registered mail (# R306786272) to the Stamp Destruction Committee ("SDC") for destruction. The station prepared a Form 17 showing that the value of the stamps was $1,316, and Form 1412 showing this amount had been sent for destruction (Tr. 48).

At that time, Petitioner Edward E. Mardant, Jr., was Supervisor (Incoming), Mail Processing, and Supervisor in charge of the Stamp Destruction Committee (Petitioner's Exhibit ["PX"]-3). On February 5, 1991, Petitioner, as head of the SDC, signed a Form 3854-A showing his receipt of the above registered package (Tr. 8-9, 15-16, 48; Respondent's Exhibit ["RX"]-1).^1/

The package disappeared and there is no additional documentation. Petitioner was the last person to have care, custody, and control of these stamps (Tr. 48).

Due to postage rate changes at that time, an unusually large amount of stamp stock was returned to the SDC for destruction. At times there was not enough room in the vault to store all of these packages of stamps, so some were stored in the accountable papers room or the registry room (PX-3, 6; Tr. 31-32). However, there is no evidence that this crowded condition created a security problem.

The record does not reveal what actually happened to the $1,316 of stock in question. Petitioner is neither accused nor suspected of stealing this stock (Stip., P.S. Ex. 8). The package was never given to the Supervisor, Accountable Paper, for preparation of a Form 3238 (Tr. 40). Petitioner did not sign a stamp destruction certificate for this stock showing that it was destroyed (Tr. 35-38). Although the members of the SDC believe they destroyed all of the stock that they observed and handled, they do not specifically remember the package in question (Tr. 24, 49).

Petitioner speculates that the package may have arrived without the proper documentation. If the package had come to Petitioner without a Form 17 attached to the outside, he should have sent the package back to the station (Tr. 41). However, if the package had been sent back, it would have been assigned a new registered number, and there is no evidence of this (Tr. 42).

Petitioner was a member of the SDC until April of 1991, when it was realigned.

Although Petitioner received no formal training regarding his duties as head of the SDC, his supervisor showed him how to perform the function. Everyone in the position received the same training. He was given the relevant page from the F-48 Handbook (Accountable Paper) relating to verification, destruction, and forms (Tr. 30). He appears to have been adequately trained since he had no problem performing his duties on the SDC on any other occasion (Tr. 36).

The Contract Station which sent the stamps in question has never had any training relating to stamp destruction. However, there is no indication that the station was responsible for the loss of this package, since it was under Petitioner's custody and control (Tr. 33).

Subsequently, the procedure for stamp destruction was changed so that the stamps are first sent to the Supervisor, Accountable Paper Section, and placed in his accountability. Thereafter, when the SDC is ready to destroy the stamps, the stamps are transferred to the committee (Tr. 26, 33).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Section 132 of Handbook F-1 provides that the Postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties.

Respondent contends that Petitioner received the stock in question as head of the Stamp Destruction Committee on February 5, 1991, and that he had the stock in his care, custody, and control. Respondent contends that the stock disappeared because Petitioner was negligent in the handling of the registered item, and that Petitioner is accountable.

Petitioner speculates that the package may have arrived without the proper paperwork, was set aside to be returned to the contract station, but was inadvertently shredded. Petitioner states that he may be guilty of failing to complete the proper Form 3238, stamp destruction certificate, and admits that he "probably should have received some sort of reprimand" for that failure (Tr. 55). He states that he has completed such forms "hundreds of times before properly and correctly" and that he should be excused for his error on this occasion (Tr. 10).

He concludes that his relief from responsibility is particularly justified since Respondent does not contend that the Petitioner stole the stamps. Finally, he blames the Postal Service for allegedly providing him only a limited amount of training in stamp destruction and placing him under undue pressure by requiring him to perform another job as Supervisor in Mail Processing (Tr. 13).

It is clear that Petitioner signed for and took custody of the registered item containing the $1,316 of stamp stock, and he is accountable for that amount unless he shows that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proving that he exercised reasonable care. Not only has he failed to adduce sufficient evidence in this regard, he had admitted that he failed to complete the requisite form and suggested that a reprimand would be more appropriate.

Petitioner's other contentions are also rejected. Whether the stamps were actually destroyed is mere speculation. Also, the fact that Petitioner is not being accused of stealing does not release him from responsibility for his negligence. Finally, it appears that he was adequately trained. In this regard, it is noted that Petitioner was shown how to perform his function with the Stamp Destruction Committee, and performed his task without error on hundreds of occasions. The fact that there may have been a large amount of work does not relieve him of his responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner is liable to the Postal Service for the loss of $1,316.

Since Petitioner has not argued that a different schedule of payments should apply, this debt shall be paid to the Postal Service by deducting 15% of Petitioner's disposable pay each pay period until elimination of the debt.

Randolph D.
Mason Administrative Law Judge

1/ There were five other registered items which Petitioner signed for at the same time, which were on the float which was moved from the registry section to the stamp destruction room. Petitioner was in control of this float (Stip., RX-8; RX-1).