FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

On February 28, 1997, Petitioner, Mr. Omar Hechavarria, filed a petition for a hearing on written submissions⁽¹⁾ after Respondent, the Postal Service, began collecting $50.00 a pay period from his salary for the repayment of $1,334.70, based on a shortage in his flexible accountability credit. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition because a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Offsets letter had not been issued. However, since Respondent began collection without issuance of a Notice, the petition has been allowed to proceed.

The record consists of the petition and answer, a second agency response and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (each with accompanying documents).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a Postal Service employee at the Kendall Branch of the Miami, Florida Post Office. On September 9, 1996, an audit of his flexible accountability credit disclosed a shortage of $1,334.70. Petitioner refused to sign the audit. (Answer, Exhibit Nos. 1, 3).

2. On an earlier occasion, on March 29, 1996, Petitioner's drawer was found open when he reported to work on that day. Petitioner's credit was immediately audited, however, and found to be in tolerance.⁽²⁾ (Answer).

3. At the same time as Petitioner's credit was audited on September 9, 1996,

Respondent conducted a key check verification. The purpose of this key check was to ensure that the keys of other employees could not open Petitioner's drawer. The key check failed to uncover any other employee with a key that would open Petitioner's drawer. (Respondent's Second Agency Response).

4. On December 27, 1996, Respondent began collection of $50.00 per pay period from Petitioner's salary without first issuing a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets letter. Three hundred dollars ($300.00) had been collected prior to the filing of this petition. Respondent ceased collection from Petitioner's salary upon being notified of the petition. (Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment; Answer).

DECISION

Respondent argues that a valid debt to the Postal Service exists in that the audit of Petitioner's flexible accountability credit on September 9, 1996, disclosed a $1,334.70 shortage. Although Petitioner refused to sign the audit sheet, Respondent notes that he has not disputed the shortage and has not offered any evidence to demonstrate that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. Petitioner's arguments in this petition all concern alleged violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Petitioner's union and the Postal Service and alleged procedural violations in the agency's processing of this alleged debt.⁽³⁾

The standard of liability in this dispute can be found in Subsection 132, Other Employees, of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures. 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, such as that in this petition, Respondent must only prove that a loss 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 Petitioner.

Respondent has met that burden in this petition. The evidence is undisputed that a shortage of $1,334.70 existed in Petitioner's accountability. (Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 1). Although Petitioner did not sign the audit documents, he does not dispute their accuracy nor has he offered any explanation for the cause of the shortage that would exonerate him from accountability for the loss. In his union grievance process Petitioner argued that Respondent failed to properly conduct a key check verification. However, on the occasion of the audit of Petitioner's accountability on September 9, 1996, Respondent did conduct a key check which failed to uncover any other keys in the office that would open Petitioner's drawer. (FOF 3).

Although Petitioner argued numerous violations of his union agreement and other alleged procedural violations, he failed to argue or submit any evidence to demonstrate that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. The only evidence on this point was furnished by Respondent and it showed that on at least one occasion Petitioner may not have exercised reasonable care in that his drawer was found open on the morning of March 29, 1996. (FOF 2).

Violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by Respondent and other alleged procedural violations, even if true, are not relevant to this proceeding. This forum is limited to deciding whether a loss to the Postal Service exists and, if so, whether the Petitioner is liable for that debt. The procedural errors alleged by Petitioner have not affected the merits of this case, nor have they hindered Petitioner's ability to present defenses to the debt being litigated in this petition. Respondent's withholding $50.00 of Petitioner's pay without issuance of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Offsets letter, although improper, was corrected upon filing of this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is denied. Petitioner is liable for repayment to the Postal Service of the $1,334.70 debt involved in this petition.

Willliam K. Mahn
Administrative Judge

1. Petitioner originally requested an oral hearing, but later changed his request to a hearing by written submissions.

2. Petitioner's filings in this petition contain little in the way of explanation or defense to the shortage of which Respondent seeks repayment. The issue of the open drawer, and a claim that key checks were not properly performed by management, was raised by Petitioner in a grievance filing regarding this debt and addressed by Respondent in this proceeding. (Answer).

3. For example, Petitioner argues that he should be relieved of this debt because Respondent began collection before issuing a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets letter. (Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment).