FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Eulalia Anne S. Lee, filed a petition requesting a 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 from Respondent, United States Postal Service. The Notice informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to deduct a total of $811.85 from her salary to make up for four financial discrepancies occurring during the time she was postmaster at Pine Meadow, Connecticut.

The parties elected to have this matter decided without an oral hearing. Both submitted additional documents and arguments in support of their positions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the postmaster of the Pine Meadow, Connecticut Post Office, and has held that position since at least 1993.

2. By memorandum dated October 16, 1995, Respondent issued an invoice stating that Petitioner owed Respondent a total of $811.85, broken down as follows:

3. The first item listed on the October 16, 1995 invoice stems from Petitioner's deposit of her office receipts for October 22, 1993, into Respondent's bank account. Petitioner counted the cash and checks received by her post office and filled out a deposit slip showing a deposit of $157.34. Petitioner's count was verified by a postmaster from a neighboring post office who was present at the time and who signed the deposit slip along with Petitioner. Petitioner then placed the deposit in a registered mail envelope, sealed the envelope and placed it in a mail sack which was subsequently locked and dispatched. However, the bank reported receiving $60.00 less in the deposit, and on October 28, 1993, the Hartford District directed Petitioner to adjust her accounts to reflect a $60.00 reduction in the October 22 deposit.

4. The second item on the invoice stems from a shipment or shipments of stamp stock from the stamp distribution office to Pine Meadow. A stamp shipment from the New Haven Stamp Distribution Office ("SDO") was sent by registered mail to Pine Meadow on September 3, 1993. The shipment was received in the Pine Meadow Post Office on September 4, 1993. Another registered mail parcel was sent by the SDO on September 7, 1993. The Pine Meadow Post Office received a shipment from the SDO on September 8, 1993, but the registered number recorded at the Pine Meadow Post Office for that shipment differed from that of the September 7 shipment from the SDO. (Petitioner's May 30, 1997 submission; Respondent's May 27, 1997 submission).

5. The post office's Daily Stamp Stock Accountability Recap for September 14, 1993, shows an entry for "Stock Received" of $696. Respondent contends the $730 total of stock shipped to Pine Meadow consisted of four stamp requisitions in the amounts of $34, $58, $580 and $58. The last three totaled $696. (Petitioner's May 30, 1997 submission).

6. In February 1994, the Postal Account Section of the Minneapolis Accounting Service Center sent the Pine Meadow Postmaster a "Statement of Account Audited" reflecting an entry in the column headed, "Audit Short", of $730 for a line item "Postage Stock Received". The document directed the postmaster to adjust the accounts of the Pine Meadow Post Office to reflect that entry. (RX 2, p. 7; RX 13).

7. Petitioner was away from her office August 22 through September 4, 1993, and from September 13 through September 29, 1993. Petitioner's departure on September 13 was unexpected, and Respondent sent an official to the post office to transfer the main stock to the employee who would be operating the post office in Petitioner's absence. A count of the main stock on September 14, 1993, incident to transfer of responsibility for the stock revealed an overage of $34.50 (Petitioner's May 30, 1997 submission; RX 12, 14).

8. Regarding the third element of Respondent's claim, a computer printout relating to Pine Meadow, titled "AIC PM Account Detail Within Finance" reflects under AIC 217, an entry of "$3.75-" (RX 2, p.4).

9. Regarding the fourth item in the claim, PS Form 1554, Statement of Account, for Pine Meadow for the period December 10, 1994, through March 3, 1995, shows a "Suspense" entry of $1,276.67. The same "Suspense" entry for the Statement of Account for the succeeding period, March 4, 1995, through May 26, 1995, is $1,294.77, which is $18.10 greater than the entry for the previous period. (RX 2, pp. 5, 6).

10. By letters dated December 8, 1995, and April 22, 1996, Respondent advised Petitioner that she owed Respondent $811.85, attaching a copy of the October 16, 1995 invoice to each letter (RX 2, p. 2; RX 3, 4), and on January 6, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets claiming the $811.85 (RX 1). Petitioner filed a timely petition for hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

DECISION

Before it is permitted to recover a claimed debt of an employee by involuntary salary offset, Respondent must demonstrate that it suffered a loss to an accountability for which the employee is responsible or suffered a loss due to the actions of the employee. Respondent has failed to meet its burden in this case.

With respect to the bank deposit (Finding 3), Petitioner's unrebutted evidence was that she performed the count carefully and that the count was verified by another employee. Respondent has not demonstrated why the bank's calculation should be accepted over Petitioner's verified count. More important, however, Respondent has not demonstrated how a discrepancy in a bank deposit necessarily results in a loss to the Postal Service. There has been no showing that the cash and stock at the post office at that time was short by $60.00 or any other amount, so Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it suffered a loss, even if there was an error in Petitioner's bank deposit.

With respect to the $730.00 for the claimed stock shortage (Findings 4-7), Respondent argues that stamp stock in that amount was received by the Pine Meadow Post Office and placed in the main stock but never accounted for in the financial records of the post office. Thus, according to this theory, Respondent suffered a loss of $730 even though there was no shortage in the main stock at the time (Finding 7), because had it not been for the extra stock, there would have been a shortage of $730. Respondent's evidence that it shipped $730 of stock in September is weak. Respondent relies on the Statement of Account Audited (Finding 6), but there is no evidence explaining the significance of that document or demonstrating that it does anything more than reflect Respondent's belief that there was a stock shortage in that amount.

There are handwritten notes on the Statement of Account Audited that Respondent asserts show four stamp shipments to Pine Meadow totaling $730. It is true that the four handwritten numbers add up to $730, but the source of those notes is not explained, and there is no evidence from one familiar with the form as to the significance of the notes. Additionally, the handwritten dates associated with the entries are also unexplained and do not square with the dates of the shipments from the SDO to Pine Meadow (Finding 4). Respondent offered no documents from the SDO to show the amount of stock allegedly shipped to Pine Meadow.

In support of its position on this issue, Respondent also submitted two pages of PS form 3854, a listing of registered mail sent to various post offices, including Pine Meadow, on September 2 and September 7. To establish the significance of the entries Respondent relies upon, however, would require an affidavit or declaration or other evidence explaining what the entries show. Other than the assertions of Respondent's representative, there is nothing to explain these documents, and there is no basis for accepting such assertions as evidence in this case.

Finally, the Daily Stamp Stock Accountability Recap for September 14, 1993, reflects that stock received valued at $696 (the exact sum of the last three handwritten entries on the Statement of Account Audited that Respondent contends were the amounts of the separate stamp orders) was entered into the post office accounts (Finding 5). In fact, accepting for the moment Respondent's contention that stock valued at $730 was shipped, entry of $696 into the records of the post office on September 14 would leave $34 in extra stock unaccounted for. The main stock count on September 14 showed an overage of $34.50 (Finding 7), which would suggest that only $34 of stock was placed into the main stock without being entered in the post office records and that the $34 in extra stock was the overage in the main stock, not a loss to Respondent. Thus, an explanation of the circumstances favorable to Petitioner is just as likely on this record as Respondent's theory. Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it suffered a loss of $730 related to stamps shipped to the Pine Meadow Post Office.

Respondent has also failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the last two small elements of its claim against Petitioner reflect a loss to Respondent for which Petitioner is responsible. While Respondent submitted copies of Postal Service records that state those figures, it has not shown what the entries mean or that a loss resulted.

In presenting its case, Respondent has apparently assumed that the hearing official has detailed knowledge of Postal Service financial forms and of the financial and accounting requirements of a post office. That assumption is incorrect, and, whether the hearing is oral or on written submissions, in order to prove its case Respondent must present evidence, including affidavits or declarations, to explain the significance of the documents it presents and the meaning of entries on those documents. For example, Respondent correctly points out that the Suspense entry on the Statement of Account for December 10, 1994, through March 3, 1995, differs from that on the Statement of Account for March 4 to May 26, 1995, by $18.10 (Finding 9). However, without an affidavit or declaration from someone familiar with the forms or other evidence to explain the significance of the $18.10 difference, I cannot find that that difference represents a loss to Respondent for which Petitioner should be found liable. Merely submitting the forms that reflect or report an accounting discrepancy is not sufficient to carry Respondent's burden to show that it suffered a loss.

In conclusion, Respondent's claims against Petitioner fail for lack of proof that a loss occurred for which Petitioner is responsible. The petition is sustained.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge