FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT

Petitioner, Dale R. Zimmerman has filed a timely Petition 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 June 18, 1997. The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $253.73, allegedly because of salary overpayments.

Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions and the parties were afforded an opportunity to submit additional evidence and arguments in support of their positions. Petitioner made such a submittal. However, with the exception of submitting a motion to dismiss, which was denied, Respondent has failed to submit any evidence or arguments in opposition to the Petition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner filed his Petition on June 30, 1997. In accordance with 39 C.F.R. §961.7, Respondent's Answer to the Petition was required to be filed within fifteen days of notice of the Petition, in this case, by July 16, 1997. Respondent did not file an Answer.

2. By Order dated July 24, 1997, Respondent was advised that its Answer was late and that, if it intended to contest the Petition, an Answer or other appropriate pleading must be filed no later than August 7, 1997.

3. On July 30, 1997, Respondent filed a Notice of Appearance and a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, in which it argue that Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements for filing a Petition, as set forth in 39 C.F.R. §961.4.

4. By Order dated July 31, 1997, Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to supplement the information included in his Petition. Supplementary information was filed by Petitioner on August 18, 1997, and the Motion to Dismiss was denied by Order dated August 26, 1997.

5. By the same August 26, 1997 Order, Respondent was advised that Petitioner had elected a hearing by written submissions and that unless Respondent objected, this election would be granted. Absent a request by Respondent for an oral hearing, the parties were granted until September 15, 1997, to file written submissions of evidence and arguments and until September 30, 1997, to file rebuttal evidence and arguments.

6. On September 11, 1997, Petitioner timely filed additional arguments. However, Respondent failed to file any evidence or arguments in opposition to the Petition or make any other submission.

DECISION

Respondent, as the party alleging a debt owed to the Postal Service, has the burden of establishing that a loss to the Postal Service actually occurred. In this case, Respondent has not submitted any evidence or arguments in opposition to the Petition. Accordingly, this Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect the alleged debt of $253.73 from Petitioner.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge