FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Leroy Gillatt, filed a Petition for a hearing after receiving a Letter of Demand on August 5, 1997, from his supervisor at the Nampa, Idaho Post Office. This letter stated that an audit of Petitioner's flexible credit disclosed a shortage of $428.32 and demanded its repayment. On November 10, 1997, subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the Postal Service belatedly issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner seeking the same sum. Generally, until a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets letter has been issued to an employee, that employee is not entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961 (§§961.3(e), 961.4; Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), sections 452.32, 452.336, 462.22). The parties requested, however, that the matter be decided even though the Petition had been filed prior to issuance of the Notice. This request was granted by Order dated November 20, 1997.

Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions, and the parties were afforded and opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument in support of their positions. The following findings of fact are based on the parties' submissions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Nampa, Idaho Post Office. An audit of his flexible credit, conducted on June 10, 1997, disclosed a shortage of $428.32. Petitioner signed the audit documents, thereby indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the count.

2. Petitioner's two prior audits, on November 19, 1996 and February 13, 1997, disclosed shortages of $78.60 and $49.56, respectively. Petitioner was not required to repay to the Postal Service either of these audited shortages. The $49.56 shortage was within the allowable $50.00 window clerk account shortage tolerance and a sufficient relationship was found to an overage in another account at the post office to allow Petitioner to be relieved of responsibility for the $78.60 shortage in his account.

3. On another occasion, Petitioner avoided a shortage when a customer returned a $32.00 coil of stamps Petitioner had mistakenly given to the customer.

4. New locks were installed on Petitioner's equipment when he initially received his stamp stock in February of 1996. Subsequent key check verifications performed on the keys of the clerks at the post office indicated that only Petitioner's keys operated his equipment.

5. On April 15, 1997, Petitioner's disk for his Integrated Retail Terminal (IRT) would not "boot up". However, since this failure occurred before any of the day's transactions took place, none of his transactions were lost and his closing balance from the previous day was used to establish an accurate opening balance upon correction of the computer problem. Petitioner personally witnessed the input of his previous day's closing balance when his disk was re-created.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner offers three arguments in support of his Petition. Petitioner first argues that his prior audit history demonstrates that he exercises care in performing his duties. Petitioner notes in this regard that he received a superior rating from his window clerk trainer prior to becoming a full-time window clerk. Petitioner next argues that the post office experienced computer problems during the time period covered by the audit that may have contributed to the shortage in his account. Finally, Petitioner argues that his shortage, as well as shortages of other clerks at the Nampa Post Office may indicate a security problem.

Respondent argues that Petitioner's prior audit history, rather than demonstrating reasonable care, in fact shows that Petitioner did not carefully perform his duties. Respondent next argues that the computer problem raised by Petitioner (his IRT failed to "boot up") often happens but that the measures taken to correct the problem insured that there were no errors in Petitioner's accountability. Finally, Respondent argues that Petitioner's claim of poor security at the post office is simply speculation on his part and is not supported by the evidence in this Petition.

DECISION

The standard for determining liability of Postal Service employees in matters such as this is contained in Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, (November 1996), at subsection 141:

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.

Respondent's burden of proof, in cases of unexplained shortages such as this, is to establish a loss and to show that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was accountable for the stock in question. When a properly conducted audit shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the audit or previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may not have been an actual loss. Richard G. Dreher, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-223 (Sept. 2, 1997). In this case there is no persuasive evidence to rebut the findings of the audit conducted on June 10, 1997.

Although Petitioner alleged that a computer problem, which occurred during the period covered by his audit, may have caused an error in his accountability, he offered no proof in support of this allegation. In rebutting this allegation, Respondent has demonstrated that it took proper measures to correct the problem with Petitioner's computer and that Petitioner personally witnessed the data input that re-established the correct balance on his IRT disk after its failure (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 5).

Similarly, Petitioner failed to provide any evidence in support of his allegation that his shortage was the result of a breach of security. New locks were installed on Petitioner's equipment after he initially received his stamp stock in February 1996. Key check verifications performed on the keys of the clerks at Petitioner's post office since that time establish that only Petitioner's keys opened his locks. (FOF 4).

Finally, Respondent having shown a loss, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden to establish that he followed postal procedures when performing his duties. His two prior audits, rather than supporting his assertion that he followed postal procedures in performing his duties, in fact demonstrate a pattern of failing to properly account for his stamp stock. His shortage of $78.60 on November 19, 1996, was not charged to him because the Postal Service did not suffer an actual loss (because of a relationship between Petitioner's shortage and an overage in another account). Nevertheless, Petitioner must have made a mistake in properly accounting for his own stock or the shortage in his accountability would not have occurred. Similarly, the $49.56 shortage in his account, discovered on February 13, 1997, was not charged to him only because it fell $. 44 below the tolerance level. (FOF 2). Finally, Petitioner's action in mistakenly giving a customer a $32.00 roll of stamps did not result in a shortage only because the customer corrected the mistake made by Petitioner (FOF 3).

Based on the facts in the record of this Petition, I cannot find that Petitioner followed Postal Service procedures when performing his duties as a window clerk. Accordingly, he is liable for the repayment of $428.32. The Petition is denied.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge