In the Matter of the Petition by

NATHANIEL T. SAMPSON
USPS Postmaster
118 Magnolia Street

           at

Milton, DE 19968-9998

P. S. Docket No. DCA 00-192

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:     W. Thomas Brown
                                                         P.O. Box 275
                                                         New Cumberland, PA 17070-0275

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  George A. Peters
                                                         Labor Relations Specialist
                                                         United States Postal Service
                                                         P.O. Box 9001
                                                         Bellmawr, NJ 08099-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Nathaniel T. Sampson, 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 May 24, 2000. The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $1,076.12 resulting from a shortage in his accountability as the unit reserve stock custodian.

A hearing was held on September 8, 2000, in New Castle, Delaware. The Postal Service presented the testimony of two employees, and Petitioner testified on his own behalf. In addition to the transcript of the hearing, the record also contains Petitioner’s Exhibit P-1, and Respondent’s Exhibits R-1 through R-10. The parties made closing arguments at the conclusion of the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a level 18 postmaster of the Milton, Delaware Post Office, and has held this position for the last seven years. In this position he had accountability for the unit reserve stock. (Transcript pages (Tr.) 21, 22, 25).

2. On December 3, 1999, in preparation for an extended absence from his position to have cancer surgery, Petitioner issued three weeks’ worth of stamp stock to each of his clerks (Tr. 30-33).

3. Because of complications from the surgery and cancer treatment, Petitioner did not return to his position as postmaster until April of 2000. During his absence, Alva Murray, who was one of Petitioner’s clerks, supervised the post office. (Tr. 33, 34, 63, 68).

4. On December 17, 1999, one of the clerks at the Milton Post Office was audited by Petitioner’s replacement and was found to have an overage of $463.15 in his stamp stock. This overage was placed in trust, and his accountability was returned to balance. Prior audits of this same clerk, on September 22 and October 6, 1999, found shortages of $303.23 and $131.96, respectively. A subsequent audit on April 4, 2000 disclosed a $562.92 shortage. In each case, the shortages were placed in suspense and the clerk’s account was placed in balance (Tr. 44, 59, 63; Respondent’s Exhibit R-1).

5. On January 5, 2000, prior to transferring accountability for the stock to Alva Murray during the remainder of Petitioner’s convalescence, an audit was conducted of Petitioner’s unit reserve stock. Ms. Murray and Mr. Walter DiMattesa, a postmaster serving as an acting Postal System Coordinator, conducted the audit. The audit disclosed a shortage of $1,076.12. Ms. Murray and Mr. DiMattesa signed the audit document. (Tr. 12, 13; R-10).

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 "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141. The Postal Service must only prove that a financial loss occurred and that the person charged was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. 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 previously established balance, or otherwise suggests there may not have been an actual loss.

In this case, Petitioner did not argue, or offer evidence, to demonstrate that he followed U.S. Postal Service policies and procedures in managing his office. Moreover, Petitioner does not dispute his responsibility for the unit reserve stock, or that there was a shortage of $1,076.12 in this stock. Petitioner argues, however, that he should be credited with the $463.15 overage found in the accountability of one of his clerks during the same time frame (Finding of Fact No. 4). Respondent disagrees with this argument, claiming that the prior and subsequent shortages experienced by this clerk explain the overage that was discovered in December 1999.

For an overage to be offset against a shortage, some relationship between the two must be shown. Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, §429.16. Other than the proximity in time between the clerk’s December 17, 1999 audit disclosing an overage, and Petitioner’s January 5, 2000 audit, Petitioner has failed to offer any evidence to demonstrate such a relationship. Lacking some specific evidence of a relationship between the clerk’s $463.15 overage, and Petitioner’s $1,076.12 shortage, there is no basis for crediting this overage against Petitioner’s shortage.

Accordingly, the Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $1,076.12 by administrative offset from Petitioner’s salary.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge