FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, John Goncalves, filed a timely petition requesting an oral 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 on January 29, 1997. The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $4,000 resulting from a shortage in a vacant credit under his responsibility at the Danbury Connecticut Post Office.

A hearing was held on April 10, 1997, in Danbury, Connecticut. The Postal Service presented testimony from two employees. Petitioner presented the testimony of four employees, as well as testifying on his own behalf. In addition to the transcript of the hearing, the record also contains Respondent's Exhibits RX-1 through RX-11 and Petitoner's Exhibits PX-1 through PX-7. The parties made closing arguments at the conclusion of the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a level 16 supervisor in the Danbury Connecticut Post Office (Petitioner's Exhibit (PX) 1). Petitioner's former and current supervisors consider him to be an excellent employee and a very good supervisor (Transcript pages (Tr.) 36, 40, 67).

2. Beginning in September 1995, until October 1996, he was the reserve stock custodian of the Main Street Station⁽¹⁾ (Tr. 68). Included in his responsibilities in this position is accepting back and safeguarding the credit of a departing clerk until the credit is reissued (Tr. 14, 40).

3. In approximately February or March 1996, he accepted the credit of a departing clerk. In so doing, he counted and verified the credit, and then "sealed" it by placing it in a drawer in a locked compartment within a safe, which was, itself, contained in a walk-in vault. He also placed a small piece of tape over the drawer and the compartment door. (Tr. 12, 14, 16, 38, 39, 71, 72). The vault, and the safe within it, was used by the clerks to store and safeguard their credit when not in use. The station also contained a second vault and safe which was used exclusively by the unit reserve custodian to store and safeguard the unit reserve stock. (Tr. 16, 17).

4. This manner of securing and accounting for a "vacant credit" was in keeping with past practice at the Danbury Post Office (Tr. 79). With the exception of the type of tape used by Petitioner to seal the drawer and compartment⁽²⁾, everything he did was the proper procedure for sealing a vacant credit (Tr. 43).

5. On September 18, 1996, Petitioner removed the vacant credit from the safe and counted it prior to issuing it to a replacement clerk. $4,000 in coils and books of stamps were then found to be missing from the credit. (Respondent's Exhibit (RX) 8; Tr. 8, 13, 39, 71-75).

6. An investigation of the missing $4,000 credit was conducted by the Postal Inspection Service, but the investigation was inconclusive. However, during this investigation it was discovered that the hinge pins on the door to the compartment within the safe, in which the credit was stored, could easily be removed and the compartment door containing the vacant credit could be opened and replaced by using a screwdriver. (RX-8; Tr. 18, 72-74).

7. On January 29, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets asserting a claim of $4.000, and Petitioner filed a timely petition challenging the collection (Petitioner's Exhibits (PX) 1, 2).

DECISION

The applicable standard of liability in this dispute can be found in Subsection 132, Other Employees, of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures. This section provides, inter alia, that 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 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. Respondent has met that burden in this proceeding. Petitioner does not dispute that he was assigned the responsibility of unit reserve custodian, which included the responsibility of safekeeping vacant credits, and that he experienced a shortage of $4,000 in a vacant credit under his responsibility. (Finding of Fact (FOF) 2, 5).

Petitioner does argue, however, that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties, including all his actions with respect to his handling of the vacant credit. In this regard, Respondent concedes that, with the exception of the choice of tape used by Petitioner, Petitioner followed the then-current office procedures for safekeeping a vacant credit until it is reissued (FOF 4). In all other respects, Petitioner is considered by his supervisors to be an excellent, conscientious employee (FOF 1, 2).

Petitioner's use of an incorrect choice of tape to secure the credit drawer and compartment, standing alone, does not support a finding of a failure to exercise reasonable care. Had Petitioner been aware of, and chosen to use the correct tape, it would not have prevented a theft of the vacant credit (although it may have made its occurrence more apparent) (FOF 4).

In all other respects, Petitioner handled the vacant credit in the correct manner and performed all of his other duties properly. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties.

The petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect the $4,000 from Petitioner's salary.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge

¹ Three audits of the reserve stock during Petitioner's tenure as custodian resulted in a correct, or "on the money" tabulation (Tr. 68).

² There is a special type of more adhesive tape to be used when sealing a vacant credit. The increased adhesiveness on this tape would not have prevented a theft, but an unauthorized removal of this tape would have been more apparent. (Tr. 42, 78). However, Petitioner was not then aware of the existence of this specialized tape (Tr. 78).