In the Matter of the Petition by

ROBERT D. ARAGON
1 Remington Court

          at

Pueblo, CO 81008-1812

P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-208

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:       Robert D. Aragon
                                                           1 Remington Court
                                                           Pueblo, CO 81008-1812

APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT: Roberta Speyer
                                                           Marsha L. Boyle
                                                           Labor Relations Specialists
                                                           United States Postal Service
                                                           7500 E. 53rd Place, Room 2254
                                                           Denver, CO 80266-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Robert D. Aragon, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated June 1, 2000, from the Manager, Accounting Services. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $2,706.60 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in Petitioner's stamp stock account.

A hearing was held in Pueblo, Colorado on September 6, 2000. The Postal Service presented testimony from Gil Trujillo, a postal employee who had discussed the loss of stamps with Petitioner, Louis Resendez, Petitioner's supervisor, Dale Tafoya, another clerk, and Robert Podio, the Pueblo Postmaster. Petitioner testified in his own behalf and also called three other window clerks, Dolores Gonzales, Michael Cisneros and Susan Ashley. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner has been a postal window clerk for approximately ten years. During the time pertinent to this case, he had been a window clerk at the Midtown Station in Pueblo, Colorado for about a year and a half. (Tr. 103).(1)

2. On or about March 20, 2000, Petitioner told three co-workers that he believed he may have inadvertently thrown some of his high-value stamps into the trash when cleaning out some folders. One of these co-workers also saw Petitioner looking through a trash dumpster, and Petitioner stated that he was looking for his stamps. On March 27, 2000, Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Resendez questioned him about this and Petitioner told Mr. Resendez that he had thrown away some stamps by mistake. Mr. Resendez then told Petitioner that they would have to do an audit of his account immediately. (Tr. 11-12, 17, 21, 50, 72; Answer, Ex. 2, pp. 1-6).

3. Mr. Resendez performed an audit of Petitioner's account on March 28, 2000. Petitioner participated in the count and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that he agreed with the accuracy of the count. The count showed that Petitioner's account was $2,706.60 short. (Tr. 21-22; Answer, Ex. 5).

4. The only quantities of high-value stamps in Petitioner's account at the time of the audit on March 28, 2000, were 100 $1.00 stamps, 20 $3.20 Priority Rate stamps, and 20 $11.75 Express Mail stamps. Petitioner had ordered and received those exact quantities of stamps on March 27, 2000. On March 1, 2000, Petitioner had ordered and received more than $1,100.00 of these same denominations. Although Petitioner now contends that he did not throw away any stamps, the preponderance of evidence establishes that he did. (Tr. 22, 90; Answer, Ex. 5, p. 2; Answer, Ex. 6 and 7).

5. Petitioner's audit history at the Midtown Station shows eight audits between June 1998 and April 2000, when he left the window and moved to another job. He had three shortages beyond the $50.00 tolerance level, in January 1999, January 2000, and the current one in March 2000. His September 1999 audit also showed a $1,600.00 shortage, but this was determined to be the result of an accounting error rather than a real shortage, and Petitioner was not issued a letter of demand. (Tr. 33-35, 94, PS Ex. 3).

6. At no time prior to the March 28, 2000 audit did Petitioner complain to his supervisors, or to co-workers, that he believed his stamp drawer had been tampered with or that someone else had a key to his stamp drawer. (Tr. 9-10, 23-24, 54, 71, 85).

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.

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. If Respondent proves a loss, 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. In this case, the audit of Petitioner's account on March 28, 2000, establishes a loss of $2,706.60.

Petitioner's position is that the shortage is due to security problems and Mr. Resendez' failure to perform all required key checks, i.e., that he did not insure that clerks did not have keys to other clerks' stamp compartments. Petitioner's evidence and argument on security problems is not sufficient to relieve him of liability. Even assuming that Mr. Resendez did not perform all the key checks as required, or that there were some general security problems in the office, there is no evidence at all that any unauthorized person had access to Petitioner's stamp stock. It is significant that Petitioner never made any complaint to anyone before March 28, 2000, that his drawer was not secure.

Likewise, Petitioner's arguments as to other instances of Mr. Resendez failing to follow certain procedures in carrying out his duties fail to show any connection to Petitioner's shortage. Petitioner also points to the $1,600.00 error in September 1999 as an example of the type of mistake that can cause an apparent shortage (see Finding of Fact #5). That error was quickly caught and corrected, however. It was a self-contained incident and was not shown to have had any effect on the shortage in issue.

On the issue of whether Petitioner himself followed established procedures in managing his account, his bare statement that he exercised as much reasonable care as he could (Tr. 91) is not sufficient to relieve him of liability under the standard quoted from the F-1 Handbook, in the face of other contradictory evidence, i.e., the fact that he carelessly threw away some stamps, and his record of other shortages in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, his apparent record of good service to customers is not a basis for relieving Petitioner of liability. There is no evidence that Petitioner has not been a loyal, hard-working employee during his many years of service. The issue here, however, is over application of the rules of accountability and liability for postal employees who manage large sums of cash and stamp stock. Respondent has proved a loss from Petitioner's account, and the record does not demonstrate a reason for relieving him of liability.

The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $2,706.60 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1 References to the hearing transcript are "Tr. _." Documents attached to Respondent's Answer will be "Answer, Ex. _," and documents introduced at the hearing will be "PS Ex. _."