In the Matter of the Petition by                                 )
                                                                                 )
GEORGE J. BOUCHARD                                           )
2623 Hinda Road                                                      )
                                                                                 )
  at                                                                            )
                                                                                 )
Lake Park, FL 33403-1466                                       )    P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-203

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                            George J. Bouchard
                                                                                2623 Hinda Road
                                                                                Lake Park, FL 33403-1466

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                         John Rossi
                                                                                 Sr. Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                                 United States Postal Service
                                                                                 P.O. Box 999420
                                                                                 Mid-Florida, FL 32799-9420

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, George J. Bouchard, filed this Petition for a hearing on written submissions after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on April 27, 1998, from his supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $655.10 from Petitioner's salary to recover an overpayment made to Petitioner in pay periods 15 and 16 of 1997.

By Order dated May 29, 1998, after Respondent's Answer was received, the parties were given until June 15, 1998, to file additional evidence and arguments, and then until June 29, 1998, to submit rebuttal.⁽¹⁾ On July 16, 1998, because our records did not show that Petitioner had received Respondent's Answer and attached documents, those items were sent to him again and he was given until August 3, 1998, to file additional evidence and argument. Petitioner filed an unsworn letter dated July 30, 1998. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is an automotive mechanic employed by the Postal Service in West Palm Beach, Florida.

2. Except for two hours on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, Petitioner was absent from work from Thursday, July 17 through Friday, July 25, 1997. (Rx. 4, 7 and 8).⁽²⁾ He was tentatively placed on sick leave for those days, but was told by his supervisor, Mr. Ouillette, that he would have to provide documentation from his physician to support this. (Petition; Rx. 4 and 5).

3. On July 30, 1997, Petitioner gave Mr. Ouillette a small printed form titled, "Certificate to return to work," dated July 22, 1997 (Rx. 6). This contains a telephone number, a signature on the line labeled "Dr.," and several dates at the top indicating that Mr. Bouchard had been under the doctor's care on July 10 and July 21. Mr. Ouillette called Petitioner at his work location and told him this note was not sufficient - that more information was needed to explain why Petitioner had been unable to work for seven days. (Petition; Rx. 4).

4. During the following days, there were several conversations involving Petitioner, Mr. Ouillette, Petitioner's union representatives, and Petitioner's doctor's office, about the need for Petitioner to provide better medical documentation to support his request for sick leave. For reasons that are not clear, but perhaps in part because the doctor was on vacation during some of this time, Petitioner did not provide any further documentation.⁽³⁾ (Petition; Rx. 4).

5. On August 5, 1997, Mr. Ouillette signed two Postal Service pay and leave adjustment forms for pay periods 15 and 16 of 1997. The first of these forms directed that Mr. Bouchard's status on Thursday, July 17 and Friday, July 18 should be changed from sick leave to "AWOL" (absent without leave) (Rx. 7). The second directed that Mr. Bouchard's status for the first week of pay period 16 (July 21-25, 1997) should be changed to two hours of work and six hours AWOL on Tuesday, July 22, and AWOL for eight hours each day on July 21, 23, 24 and 25 (Rx. 8).

6. On August 19, 1997, Mr. Ouillette gave Petitioner a "Letter of Warning," listing many instances of Petitioner's unscheduled absences from work, or lateness to work, beginning in January 1997 (Rx. 10).

7. On October 1, 1997, the Postal Service Accounting Services Center issued an invoice to the Postal Officer in Charge, West Palm Beach, Florida to collect $655.10 from Mr. Bouchard's salary, based on 16 hours in pay period 15 and 38 hours in pay period 16 being changed from sick leave to AWOL/LWOP (leave without pay). The record does not include any hourly rate calculations to show how the figure $655.10 was arrived at, but as Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of that figure, it is assumed to be correct. Mr. Ouillette sent that invoice, with a cover letter dated October 15, 1997, to Petitioner (Rx. 1).

8. On November 4, 1997, Petitioner's union filed a grievance regarding the October 15, 1997 letter, but there is nothing in the record to indicate what, if anything, came of this (Rx. 9).

9. On April 24, 1998, the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued by Mr. Ouillette, which included information about Mr. Bouchard's right to petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act (attached to Petition).⁽⁴⁾ Mr. Bouchard filed a timely Petition on May 7, 1998.⁽⁵⁾

10. The following provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) pertaining to sick leave are applicable:

513.361 3 Days or Less. For periods of absence of 3 days or less, supervisors may accept the employees' statement explaining the absence. Medical documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity for work is required only when the employee is on restricted sick leave (see 513.37) or when the supervisor deems documentation desirable for the protection of the interests of the Postal Service.

513.362 Over 3 Days. For absences in excess of 3 days, employees are required to submit documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity for work.

513.364 Medical Documentation or Other Acceptable Evidence. When employees are required to submit medical documentation pursuant to these regulations, such documentation should be furnished by the employee's attending physician or other attending practitioner. The documentation should provide an explanation of the nature of the employee's illness or injury sufficient to indicate to management that the employee was (or will be) unable to perform his or her normal duties for the period of the absence. Normally, medical statements such as "under my care" or "received treatment" are not acceptable evidence of incapacitation to perform duties. Supervisors may accept proof other than medical documentation if they believe it supports approval of the sick leave application.

513.365 Failure to Furnish Required Documentation. If acceptable proof of incapacitation is not furnished, the absence may be charged to annual leave, LWOP, or AWOL.

DECISION

Clearly, the note provided by Petitioner (Rx. 6) does not meet the standard of medical documentation required by ELM Section 513.364. It does not identify the nature of Petitioner's illness or treatment, and says nothing about what work he was able, or unable, to do. Compare Wendy Keller, P.S. Docket No. DCA-88 (March 8, 1991)(holding that the medical documentation was sufficient). Even the second note (see fn. 3), assuming it is authentic, which I am unable to do, does not meet the requirements. In his unsworn statement, Petitioner offers some excuses for not providing the information required by the ELM, but he has presented no evidence to show that the action taken to convert sick leave to AWOL/LWOP was not proper.

The only issue presented by the facts is whether the absence from July 17 through July 25 should be counted as one absence or two, and if it is two absences, how to apply the ELM rules regarding the requirement for medical documentation.

The records presented by Respondent show that Petitioner returned to work for two hours on July 22, 1997, apparently at the beginning of his duty day. Therefore, the absence that began on July 17 lasted for just three workdays. Petitioner did not remain at work on July 22, but left again, claiming to be sick. This second absence included the remaining six duty hours on that day and continued for three more full days. There is no question then that this second absence required medical documentation, as stated in ELM Section 513.362. I also conclude that it was within Mr. Ouillette's authority under ELM Section 513.361 to require documentation for the first absence even though it was only three days. Based on Mr. Bouchard's history of unscheduled absences, Mr. Ouillette could reasonably decide that it was "desirable for the protection of the interests of the Postal Service" to require documentation to cover the entire time between July 17 and July 25.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $655.10 from Petitioner's salary. With the Petition, Mr. Bouchard has submitted a pay statement for pay period 5 of 1998, which he says shows a deduction already taken from his pay for this debt. Respondent must insure that any money already withheld from Petitioner's pay on account of this debt is credited toward the total of $655.10.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

___________________________

1. This Order stated that any statements from witnesses, including Petitioner’s statement, should be in the form of affidavits, or declarations under penalty of perjury.

2. References are to documents attached to Respondent’s Answer.

3. Attached to the Petition is a copy of another Certificate to return to work, with dates indicating that Mr. Bouchard was under a doctor’s care between July 17 and July 25, 1997, the words “resp. infection,” and a signature that does not appear to be the same as the one on the first form. This form appears to be dated October 3, but Petitioner has presented no other evidence about this form, and there is nothing in the record to establish its authenticity.

4. It is noted that the Notice refers only to overpayment for 16 hours in pay period 15 of 1997. This is clearly just an administrative oversight, because all other documents in the file make clear that the $655.10 is based on the entire 54 hours in pay periods 15 and 16 of 1997, and the Petition addresses the entire period of time in issue, July 17-25, 1997.

5. In the Answer, Respondent argued that the Petition was untimely because it was not filed within fifteen days of the Letter of Demand, issued on October 27, 1997. This argument is off the mark. It is the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, not a Letter of Demand, that triggers the right to file a Petition under the Debt Collection Act. Petitioner did not receive that Notice until April 27, 1998.