FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Gregory D. Searight, filed a Petition for a hearing based on written submissions under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, following receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service. In the Notice, Respondent stated that it intended to make deductions from Petitioner's salary totaling $193.08. Both parties submitted supplemental evidence and arguments.

FINDINGS OF FACT⁽¹⁾

1. Petitioner is a full-time distribution window clerk at the Lorain, Ohio Post Office. As such, he is assigned responsibility for postal funds and accountable paper.

2. On September 24, 1996, a customer called the Lorain Post Office regarding a registered parcel that had not been received. In investigating the inquiry, it was determined that the package had been accepted at Lorain by a window clerk (not Petitioner). That window clerk was unavailable at the time and the spare keys that should have opened her counter drawer did not work. A supervisor, in front of several witnesses, including Petitioner, was able to force open the drawer by using a screwdriver inserted between the drawer and the counter top to pry up the counter top and pull open the drawer without opening the lock. The registered parcel was discovered in, and was removed from, the clerk's drawer and the drawer was closed, again using the screwdriver.

3. On March 26, 1997, a regular audit of Petitioner's accountability revealed a shortage in the amount of $193.08. The record contains no evidence as to the specific cause of the shortage.

4. Between the time of the September 24 incident (Finding 2) and the March 1997 audit, there had been two other audits of Petitioner's accountability. One audit showed an overage of $128.32 and the other a shortage of $0.38. Earlier audits of Petitioner's accountability had been within tolerance about half the time and had otherwise shown overages or shortages of as much as $188 and $529, respectively.

5. On or about the date of the audit, March 26, 1997, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for the amount of the shortage.⁽²⁾ Because Petitioner did not pay the alleged debt, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued to him on or about June 2, 1997.

6. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996) provides, in relevant part:

"14 Liability for Financial Losses

* * *

141 Other Employees' Liability

The postmaster or responsible manager consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other career employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties.

* * *

15 Protecting Accountable Papers and/or Items

* * *

151 Accountable Paper Security

* * *

151.3 All Employees Handling Accountable Paper

>> Maintain accountable items in the security equipment and advise management in writing of equipment inadequacy or malfunction."

DECISION

Petitioner argues that he should be relieved from responsibility for the shortage because the counter drawers used to hold his stamp stock are not sufficiently secure from access by other employees, including those without a key. Petitioner points to the incident detailed in Finding 2 above, as evidence of the lack of adequate security. Petitioner also argues that the amount of stamp stock assigned to him cannot be stored in the more secure compartment in a walk-in safe.

Respondent points out that Petitioner has not alleged that there was any deficiency in the manner in which the March 26, 1997 audit of his accountability was performed and has not challenged the accuracy of the count. Respondent argues further that Petitioner has not established any correlation between the shortage in his accountability and the incident detailed in Finding 2. Finally, Respondent notes that Petitioner did not notify management of what he considered inadequate security equipment, as required by paragraph 151.3 of the F-1 Handbook.

Although Petitioner has described an incident in which a drawer belonging to another clerk was pried open without the use of a key, as argued by Respondent Petitioner has not shown any likely correlation between that single incident and the shortage that was detected in the audit of his accountability. The mere possibility that the shortage could have occurred in the same manner, as suggested by Petitioner, is not sufficient. Something more is required. I note that in the six months that passed between the September incident and the March audit, there is no evidence that Petitioner expressed his concern over security or the adequacy of storage facilities in writing, as required by the F-1 Handbook. Further, the history of audits of Petitioner's accountability (Finding 4) suggests that the result of the March 1997 audit was not atypical of the results of other audits performed, further calling into question Petitioner's implied suggestion that this shortage was caused by theft by another employee.

In the case of an unexplained loss, as here, to establish a prima facie case the Postal Service 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. In this instance, Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of the audit or his accountability for the stamp stock or funds involved. Therefore, Respondent has met its burden. Further, Petitioner has provided no evidence on which to base a finding that he "followed the postal procedures established when performing [his] duties," a prerequisite under the provisions of the F-1 Handbook to absolving him of responsibility for the shortage. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent may collect the amount of the shortage by administrative offset.

The Petition is denied.

David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge

1. Findings are based on documents submitted by the parties.

2. The letter of demand was not placed in evidence by either party.