In the Matter of the Petition by

MICHAEL LEE DENNIS
2323 Freetown Court #2C

at

Reston, VA 20191-1778

P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-62

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Michael Lee Dennis
2323 Freetown Court #2C
Reston, VA 20191-1778

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Ron Coleman
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
8409 Lee Highway, Ste. 229
Merrifield, VA 22081-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Michael Dennis, a clerk at the Turnpike Post Office in Fairfax, Virginia, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated January 23, 1998, from his Supervisor of Customer Services. That Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $348.48 from Mr. Dennis’ salary to recover a shortage in his account disclosed by an audit on July 12, 1995.

A hearing was held in Merrifield, Virginia on March 17, 1998. The Postal Service presented testimony from Robert Nasser, the supervisor who conducted the July 12, 1995 audit, and also called Mr. Dennis as a witness. Mr. Dennis presented additional testimony in his own behalf. Both parties also relied on documents that were filed with the Petition and the Answer. Each party made an oral argument at the close of the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Michael Dennis, was a window clerk at the Turnpike Station Post Office in Fairfax, Virginia, from February 1993 to February 1997. (Tr. 13-14). He was accountable for stamp stock issued to him.

2. Petitioner’s total accountability usually ranged between $10,000 and $20,000. (Answer, Atch. 5). An audit of Petitioner’s account by Mr. Nasser on July 12, 1995 revealed a shortage of $348.48. Petitioner did not dispute the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 25-26; Answer, Atch. 1).

3. There are approximately six window clerks at the Turnpike Post Office. Each clerk has an assigned compartment in an office safe for storing his or her assigned stamp stock. (Tr. 30). The outer door of the safe is controlled by a combination lock. Normal procedure is for a supervisor to unlock the safe each morning, and to leave the safe on a "day lock" during working hours. This permits clerks, who are not supposed to have the safe combination,¹ to gain access to their stock compartments by merely turning the dial to a set position and then turning the lever which opens the safe. Each individual compartment is secured by a lock which is opened by a key. Only the clerk assigned to an individual compartment has the key to that compartment. (Tr. 7-8, 31, 47-48, 53). Petitioner never opened a compartment without a key, nor did he ever see anyone else do so. (Tr. 32-33).

4. Clerks are required to have their accounts audited at least every four months. The record of Petitioner’s audits, from March 1993 through February 1997, shows that his account was short five times, that it was over six times, and that it was "within tolerance" three times. An account is "within tolerance" if it is within approximately $50.00 of the opening balance. (Tr. 11; Answer, Atch 5.)

5. Prior to the July 12, 1995 audit, Petitioner never complained to his supervisors about the security of the safe, or of his individual compartment within the safe. (Tr. 42-46).

Contentions of the Parties

Respondent’s position is simply that the audit of July 12, 1995 shows that Mr. Dennis’ account was short by $348.48, that Mr. Dennis agreed with the accuracy of the count, and that he has not presented any evidence that he followed established procedures in managing his account, or any other evidence that is a basis for relieving him of liability for the shortage.

Petitioner argues that security at the Turnpike Post Office was lax in that several unauthorized people knew the combination to the safe, that the combination was not changed at times prescribed by regulation, and that the individual compartments could be opened easily without a key. He also contends that a specific former employee is a likely suspect for taking some of Petitioner’s stamp stock. This suspicion is based on his opinion that this former employee is a generally untrustworthy person.

DECISION

The standard for determining an employee’s liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 141. Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction, or act of negligence, by Petitioner. When a properly conducted inventory, or 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 inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. In this case there is no such evidence, and a loss of $348.48 is established. The burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was accountable for the stock in question. As for his claim about lack of security, his evidence falls far short of establishing a likelihood that some other employee took stamp stock from him. Even assuming that some unauthorized clerks did know the safe combination, there is no evidence that anyone other than himself had access to his compartment within that safe, or that anyone ever attempted to break into his compartment. Petitioner’s claim that the individual compartments were "relatively easy" to open without a key is not supported by any evidence.

Petitioner offered many anecdotes to illustrate the unsavory character of the former employee, but he failed to connect any of the events he described to the shortage in his account on July 12, 1995. Even assuming this employee did all the things described by Petitioner, there is no evidence that this person caused the shortage in Petitioner’s account. In fact, most of the incidents described by Mr. Dennis occurred after July 12, 1995.

Finally, Petitioner presented no evidence as to what procedures he followed in managing his account. In the absence of such evidence, and in light of his record of several other shortages and overages while at the Turnpike Post Office (FOF 4), I cannot conclude that he followed established procedures sufficiently to relieve him of liability under the standard set forth in Handbook F-1.

CONCLUSION

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $348.48 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

____________________________

1 Petitioner asserted that the clerks all knew the safe combination when he worked at Turnpike. Mr. Nasser testified to the contrary. I do not find it necessary to resolve this factual disagreement.