FINAL DECISION ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION
ACT OF 1982

Petitioner has filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the June 24,1997 Final Decision in this Petition. Respondent has submitted a response to Petitioner's motion.

In the Decision, I determined that Petitioner was liable to repay to the Postal Service the $1,334.70 shortage found in his flexible accountability credit. In his motion, Petitioner argues that he misunderstood the procedures of this legal proceeding and because of that misunderstanding, failed to argue the merits of his Petition. (In addition to the documents accompanying the Petition, Petitioner submitted what he entitled a "Motion for Summary Judgement," but did not submit any other documents or other evidence in the proceeding.)

Petitioner further argues that the Decision's Finding of Fact No. 3 was incorrect in stating that a key check was performed on September 9, 1996, to ensure that the keys of other employees could not open Petitioner's drawer. Petitioner argues that only his key was checked against the other drawers and that the keys of other clerks in the office were not checked to determine whether they could open his drawer.

Petitioner is correct in stating that he failed to submit any substantive evidence to support his Petition. This fact was noted in my Decision. Petitioner's failure to make any evidentiary submissions should not have been caused, however, by a misunderstanding of the proceedings. Petitioner originally elected an oral evidentiary hearing in his Petition. An oral hearing was scheduled to be held in Miami, Florida, on May 6, 1997. Petitioner changed his mind, however, and sought to proceed by written submissions. This request was approved and, by Order dated April 28, 1997, the parties were informed they could file any evidence or arguments they wished to make by May 20, 1997, and that they could submit rebuttal evidence and arguments by June 3, 1997.

As of June 3, 1997, the only submittals made by Petitioner were the previously mentioned "Motion for Summary Judgment" and a "Motion to Compel Compliance" dated May 21, 1997. A telephone conference was held with the parties on June 11, 1997, as a result of Petitioner's Motion to Compel Compliance. After resolving the issues contained in Petitioner's Motion to Compel Compliance, I informed the parties that the time for submitting evidence or arguments supporting their respective positions had passed and that the record in the Petition was now closed and the matter was ready for decision. Petitioner did not voice any objection at this time to the closing of the record.

If Petitioner intended to submit any additional documents or evidence he should have stated that intent during this telephone conference and interposed a timely objection to the closing of the record. Instead, Petitioner appeared to understand that he had sufficient opportunity to submit evidence and to make whatever arguments he intended to make under the written submission procedures which had been established. It was only after receiving an adverse decision that Petitioner claimed to misunderstand the procedures. Under these circumstances, I find no merit to this argument.

Petitioner's argument that the keys of other employees were not checked to determine whether they could open his drawer is refuted by the key check verification form submitted by Respondent. This document indicates that the other employees in Petitioner's branch had their keys checked routinely on a quarterly basis. Key checks had been performed both before and after the shortage was discovered in Appellant's flexible accountability credit.

Having reviewed the issues raised by Petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration, I affirm the Final Decision as it was issued. Petitioner is liable to repay $1,334.70 to the Postal Service.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge