In the Matter of the Petition by                                 )
                                                                                )
MICHAEL R. DERITA, JR. ,                                       )
512 Hill Street                                                          )
                                                                                )
           at                                                                  )
                                                                                )
Waterbury, CT 06704-2323                                    )      P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-571

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                            Michael R. Derita, Jr.
                                                                                512 Hill Street
                                                                                Waterbury, CT 06704-2323

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Larissa O. Taran, Esq.
                                                                               National Litigation
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6534
                                                                               Washington, DC 20260-1137

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the Petition in this matter on the grounds that the Petition was untimely filed. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion, contending that the Petition was filed late because the Greenwich, Connecticut Postmaster had failed to respond to Petitioner’s written request regarding the shortage.

On November 24, 1998, the Greenwich Postmaster issued Petitioner a letter stating Respondent’s intention to collect $157.49 from Petitioner’s salary due to a shortage in Petitioner’s flexible credit in that amount. The letter and its attachments (Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities and Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act) were hand-delivered to Petitioner on November 24, 1998.

The Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities advised Petitioner of a number of options available to him, including the right to file a petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.⁽¹⁾ Petitioner was advised that such a petition had to be filed with the Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, on or before the fifteenth calendar day following his receipt of the notice. Immediately following the text advising of the procedures for filing a petition was the following instruction:

"Note: while you may request a hearing and pursue one of the other available options, your hearing petition must be filed within the required time period. If questions relating to this debt are resolved before the hearing is held, your petition may be withdrawn."

By letter postmarked December 17, 1998, Petitioner filed with the Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, his Petition for a Hearing under the Debt Collection Act. This filing was more than 15 days after his receipt of the November 24 notice.⁽²⁾

The Debt Collection Act and Respondent’s implementing regulations require that a petition for a hearing be filed within 15 days after receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. 5 U.S.C. §5514; Employee and Labor Relations Manual 452.331; 39 C.F.R. §961.4. An employee may be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing if the petition is filed after the 15-day period and the employee "fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay." 39 C.F.R. §961.10(a).

The Petition in this case was filed more than 15 days after Petitioner received notice of Respondent’s intention to make involuntary salary deductions even though the attachments specifically notified him of the need to file a petition within 15 days after receipt if he wished to have a hearing. Petitioner has not provided any evidence of good cause for his delay. In response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner stated that he delayed because the postmaster had failed to respond to a written request he made. When directed by my January 27, 1999 Order to produce a copy of the written request, Petitioner responded that he could not find a copy of the letter, and his response suggests that the letter he referred to was sent at some time in the past, before the postmaster’s November 24 letter. Respondent submitted a statement of the postmaster that he had not received a request for information in regard to his November 24 letter.

Having considered the record, I conclude that the Petition was untimely filed and that Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for the delay.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the Petition is dismissed.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge