In the Matter of the Petition by

ALVIN C. HICKS, JR.
1213 S. Thomas Street, Apt. 2

at

Arlington, VA 22204-3651

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-338

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Alvin C. Hicks, Jr.
1213 S. Thomas Street, Apt. 2
Arlington, VA 22204-3651

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Donna R. Williams
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
8400 Lee Highway
Merrifield, VA 22081-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Alvin Hicks, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on October 24, 2001 from a supervisor.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,401.12 from Petitioner's salary to recover continuation of pay (COP) payments made to Petitioner in 1995.

            Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  In a telephone conference on December 14, 2001, the parties were encouraged to file statements of witnesses who had knowledge of pertinent facts.  Petitioner filed a statement from Roger Owens, a union steward, summarizing the arguments on behalf of Petitioner, and also a large volume of material, most of which had been filed earlier.  Respondent filed a supplement to the Answer, but no witness statements.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is a mailhandler at the Arlington, Virginia Post Office.  On April 26, 1995, he submitted a Department of Labor Form CA-2, Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation.  He described his condition as sleeplessness and severe mental and physical fatigue.  Petitioner's supervisor completed the Form CA-2 on May 17, 1995, indicating that Petitioner left work at 1:00 p.m. on April 20 and returned to work at 10:00 a.m. on April 22.  (Attachments to PS Answer).

            2.  Petitioner submitted requests for sick leave, PS Forms 3971, for April 20 and April 21, both of which were approved by his supervisor.  (Attachment to Owens statement).

            3.  On May 9, 1995, Petitioner submitted a Department of Labor Form CA-1, Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of Pay/Compensation.  This alleged a back injury that occurred on May 5, 1995.  This form was signed by Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Sims, on May 9, 1995, but there is no information on the form showing how long Petitioner was absent from work.  (Attachment to Owens statement).

            4.  On September 1, 1995, Petitioner was sent an invoice, stating that he owed the Postal Service $1,401.12 for overpayment of COP for a total of 153 hours in pay periods 12-14 of 1995.  Pay periods 12-14 extended from May 27 through July 7, 1995.  On October 31, 1995, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for the same amount, listing the same hours and pay periods.  (Attachments to PS Answer; Attachment to PS Supplemental Answer).

            5.  On December 27, 1995, the Department of Labor sent Petitioner a letter referencing the April 20, 1995 "injury" and informing him that his claim for compensation benefits was denied.  On January 3, 1996, a Postal Service Injury Compensation Specialist sent Petitioner's postmaster a memorandum stating that "Alvin C. Hicks sustained an injury on April 20, 1995, and was denied by the U.S. Department of Labor."  (Attachments to PS Answer).

            6.  On October 24, 2001, Petitioner was issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, referencing the October 31, 1995 letter of demand.

DECISION

            Respondent's evidence is insufficient to hold Petitioner liable for the alleged debt.

            In both the Answer and in the Supplemental Answer, Respondent argues that Petitioner received COP based on his April 20, 1995 "accident" or "injury."  In neither does Respondent make any reference to the Form CA-1 submitted by Petitioner on May 9, 1995, that claimed a back injury on May 5, 1995.  In the Supplemental Answer, Respondent did file some Time and Attendance records that appear to show that Petitioner received COP in pay periods 12-14 of 1995, and Respondent argues that this COP was unauthorized.  Respondent has presented nothing, however, to prove that it was unauthorized.  Merely citing the invoice and the letter of demand does not suffice.  Those documents prove nothing other than the fact that Petitioner was issued an invoice and a letter of demand.

           The only two documents in the file that make any reference to a claim for compensation being denied by the Department of Labor both make specific reference to the April 20, 1995 incident (Finding of Fact #5).  Also, those documents are dated in December 1995 and January 1996, well after Petitioner was issued the letter of demand.  Clearly, the allegedly unauthorized COP cannot be based on the April 1995 incident because Petitioner was absent less than two days and he had leave approved for that time.  It is more likely that the COP was the result of Petitioner missing work after the back injury in May 1995.  But Respondent's argument does not address this at all, and there is nothing whatever in the case file to show when, or why, it was determined that Petitioner was not authorized to receive this COP or who determined that he was not.

             Because Respondent has failed to prove that Petitioner owes the alleged debt, the Petition is granted.  Respondent may not collect $1,401.12 from Petitioner's salary.

                                                                        Bruce R. Houston
                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge