In the Matter of the Petition by

RICK D. WILLIAMS
13320 Stuttgart Fahren

at

Wadesville, IN  47638-9699

P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-407

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Charles Scialla
453 Preakness Avenue, Suite 5
Paterson, NJ  07502-1121

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Walter Brown
United States Postal Service
Post Office Box 31401
Louisville, KY  40231-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Rick D. Williams filed a timely petition requesting an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, on November 18, 1996.  The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $1,600.00 resulting from a shortage in the main stock^[1] at the Lawndale Station, Evansville, Indiana.

            An oral hearing was held on February 5, 1997, in Evansville, Indiana.  The Postal Service presented testimony from five employees.  Petitioner offered the testimony of three employees, as well as testifying on his own behalf.  In addition to the transcript of this hearing, the record also contains Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1-15 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.  Both parties elected to submit post hearing briefs in lieu of closing arguments.

            In the event this petition is denied, Petitioner has requested, based on mitigating circumstances, that he be granted an extended period of time in which to make repayment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is a level 16 Customer Service Supervisor at the Lawndale Station of the Evansville, Indiana Post Office (Transcript pages (Tr.) 9, 10).  He first assumed responsibility for the main stock at Lawndale for a three month period in 1994.  He was again assigned as the main stock custodian for the Lawndale Station in September 1995.  (Tr. 9, 23).  The assignment as main stock custodian is considered to be within the job responsibilities of a level 16 Customer Service Supervisor^[2] (Tr. 81).  At the time of this assignment Petitioner did not express any concerns or misgivings to superiors regarding his ability to perform the responsibilities of main stock custodian (Tr. 10, 11, 24, 25).

            2.  The Postal Service does not provide a formal training program for main stock custodians.  Employees are expected to gain the necessary knowledge through "on-the-job training."   (Tr 83).  At the time of his initial assignment as main stock custodian in 1994, "on-the-job training" was provided Petitioner during an interim period by his supervisor, who himself was the previous main stock custodian (Tr. 12, 15, 59).  On the occasion of his subsequent reassignment as main stock custodian in 1995, his then supervisor did not have any experience as a main stock custodian.  However, his supervisor arranged for Petitioner to be given stock custodian advice from other, more experienced employees of the Evansville, Indiana Post Office (Tr. 27, 35).

            3.  At the time of his reassignment as main stock custodian in 1995, Petitioner's supervisor arranged for the main stock custodian at the main post office in Evansville to come to Lawndale for a few days to instruct Petitioner and assist him in sending redeemed stock to stamp destruction.  During this two-day period, Petitioner received instruction on proper stamp stock maintenance procedures.  (Tr. 47-50).

            4.  Petitioner's stock was counted at this time and found to be short approximately $8.00.  The cause of the $8.00 shortage could not be identified since, at the time of being reassigned responsibility as main stock custodian, Petitioner had accepted redeemed stamps in sealed envelopes without verifying that the amount written on the envelope matched the contents of the envelope.  (Tr. 47, 48, 124).

            5.  Petitioner's stock was recounted in December 1995 and found to be in balance (Tr. 13, 14, 25).  However, a subsequent recount by Petitioner and his supervisor on March 7, 1996, disclosed a $1,600.00 shortage (Tr. 16, 60; Respondent's Exhibit No. (RX) 7).  In conversations with his supervisors and co-workers immediately after this count of his stock, Petitioner surmised that the shortage could possibly have been the result of his failure to properly verify the last stamp shipment received (Tr. 29, 61, 74).

            6.  Postal Service Form 17, for the February 15, 1996 shipment of stamp stock from Louisville, KY, to the Lawndale Station, does not contain Petitioner's signature acknowledging receipt of the shipment.  (It does, however, contain the signature of a witness at the Lawndale Station).  (RX 6).  This is a violation of Subsection 426, Examination of Stock Received, of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, which specifically requires that the custodian sign the stamp shipment invoice as verifier upon completion of the verification.  (RX 4).

            7.  On March 20, 1996, the Postal Service issued a Letter of Demand to Petitioner for the $1,600.00 (RX 9), and on November 18, 1996, the Postal Service issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset (RX 8).  Petitioner thereafter filed a timely petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982.

            8.  In April of 1996, Petitioner's wife was diagnosed with a serious illness.  As a consequence, Petitioner has encountered substantial financial strain.  (Tr. 138-141).

DECISION

            The applicable standard of liability in this dispute can be found in Subsection 132, Other Employees, of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures.  This section provides, inter alia, that employees who are assigned responsibility for postal funds and other accountable paper will be held strictly liable for any loss unless they can demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties.  Thus, in the case of an unexplained loss the Postal Service must only prove that a loss has occurred and that the person charged was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred.  Respondent is not required to prove any dereliction or negligence on the part of the Petitioner.  Respondent has met that burden in this proceeding.  Petitioner does not dispute that he was assigned the responsibility as main stock custodian at the Lawndale Station and that he experienced a $1,600.00 shortage in his stock (FOF 5).

            Petitioner argues, however, that his assignment as main stock custodian is not within the duties of his job description as a level 16 Customer Service Supervisor.  Petitioner further argues that he was not given proper training for this assignment and that his other duties were so great that he could not devote sufficient attention to his responsibilities as main stock custodian.  Finally, Petitioner argues that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties as main stock custodian.  None of these arguments has merit.

            The responsibilities of main stock custodian are considered to be within the job description of a level 16 Customer Service Supervisor.  In fact, two of the witnesses at the hearing in this case were, or had been, main stock custodian as a level 16 supervisor.  (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 1).  Subsections 431.21 and 432.2 of Handbook F-1 authorize the assignment of main stock or reserve stock to a supervisor as a collateral duty.  Although Petitioner did not receive formal training in the responsibilities of main stock custodian, he did receive extensive "on-the-job training" which was the normal practice at the Evansville Post Office (FOF 2).

            Finally, Petitioner never expressed any concern regarding his ability to perform the duties of main stock custodian along with his other responsibilities (FOF 1).

            Even if Petitioner's allegations concerning a lack of training or his other responsibilities were true, however, they would not exonerate Petitioner from responsibility for shortages which are legitimately found to exist from the main stock under his custody.  It is Petitioner's responsibility, once assigned duties of financial accountability, to learn what is necessary and required of him, and to perform those duties until relieved of the responsibility.  See Leloi Tuitama, P.S. Docket No. DCA-24, (Sept. 23, 1988).

            The only issue remaining is whether Petitioner exercised reasonable care in performing his duties as main stock custodian. Upon being reassigned as the main stock custodian in September of 1995, Petitioner accepted the stamp stock without verifying the contents of numerous sealed envelopes containing redeemed stamps (FOF 4).  Although the ultimate difference between the amounts recorded on the outside of the envelopes and their actual contents was only approximately $8.00, this action does not support Petitioner's assertion that he exercised reasonable care as main stock custodian.

            Upon discovering that he had a $1,600.00 shortage, Petitioner speculated aloud to both supervisors and co-workers that it was possible that the shortage was the result of his failure to properly verify the last shipment of stamps to the Lawndale Station (FOF 5).  In this regard, it is undisputed that Petitioner failed to follow at least one of the procedures enumerated in Handbook F-1 regarding verification of receipt of stamp shipments when he failed to sign the shipping invoice (FOF 6).

            Based on these facts, I find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties as main stock custodian.  Accordingly, Petitioner is liable for repayment of the $1,600.00 shortage in his stamp stock.

            Nevertheless, because of the financial difficulties Petitioner has experienced as a result of his wife's illness, he may repay the $1,600.00 debt by $50.00 installments in lieu of the $160.00 installments specified in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets letter.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge

[1]  Witnesses at the hearing in this matter would, on occasion, also refer to the stamp stock in question as "reserve stock".  In either case, the witness intended to describe the same stamp stock.  (Transcript page 41, 93).  For consistency, this opinion will refer to the stamp stock at issue as "main stock".

[2]  Two of the witnesses who testified at the hearing were, or had been, level 16 Customer Service Supervisors who were assigned the responsibility of main stock custodian.  (Tr. 58, 85, 86).