In the Matter of the Petition by

LARRY A. OSBORNE
P.O. Box 14173

at

Philadelphia, PA 19138-0173

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-344

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
William Brown
12 Mount Run
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753-7674

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
James J. Morrissey
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
P.O. Box 7956
Philadelphia, PA 19101-7956

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Larry A. Osborne, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated June 18, 2002, from his supervisor.[1]  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $2,040 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was responsible.

            A hearing was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 3, 2002.[2]  The Postal Service presented testimony from Dennis Palandro, an accounting manager, and submitted a sworn declaration from David Farren, Petitioner’s supervisor.  Petitioner testified in his own behalf and also presented testimony from Catherine Pembroke, a supervisor at another post office, and Diane Woodruff and Wilhelmina Solomon, two clerks at Petitioner’s post office.  Both parties also relied on documents filed with the Petition and the Answer.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner has been a postal supervisor for approximately seven years.  At the time pertinent to this case he was the supervisor of customer service at Bustleton Station in Philadelphia.  As such, he was the custodian of the unit reserve stock at Bustleton Station.  (Tr. 24, 68; Farren Declaration).[3]

            2.  Bustleton Station, as well as all other post office branches and stations in the Philadelphia District, receives stamp stock from a stamp distribution office (SDO).  Shipments are sent by registered mail.  A function of the District Accounting Office is to reconcile all reports of stock shipments from the SDO with reports of stock received by branches and stations.  (Tr. 9-10, 12).

            3.  On or about January 23, 2002, several registered articles containing stamp stock were shipped from the SDO to Bustleton Station and were received at Bustleton on January 25, 2002, by Dianne Woodruff.  These registered packages were included in a pouch with other items.  Ms. Woodruff signed a PS Form 3854, which listed eleven registered items.  Each item had a separate registry number, one of those being R309958415.  She placed a check mark on the form next to each registry number, indicating that each item was present.  Nothing on the outside of any of the registered packages or accompanying documents described what type of stamps a package contained, or the value of the contents.  (Tr. 13-15, 30, 52-55, 66; PS Ex. 5). 

            4.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Woodruff turned nine of the registered packages, including R309958415, over to Ms. Solomon.  Ms. Solomon filled out a PS Form 3883, Firm Delivery Receipt for Accountable and Bulk Delivery Mail, and listed the nine registry numbers, including R309958415.  Like the shipping document that Ms. Woodruff signed, the PS Form 3883 does not indicate what is contained in the package.  Ms. Solomon then placed these nine items, with the Form 3883 on top, in a hamper next to a caged area where the supervisor, Mr. Osborne, would receive them when he arrived.  This was standard procedure at Bustleton at that time.  (Tr. 50-52, 56-58, 63-65; PS Exs. 3 and 4).

            5.  When Petitioner arrived on January 25, 2002, he signed the Form 3883 that Ms. Solomon prepared and took possession of the registered packages.  Part of Petitioner’s responsibility as custodian of the unit reserve is to receive stamp stock shipments, verify the amounts, secure the stamps and enter the amounts of stamps received into his unit reserve account.  (Tr. 23-24, 65-66, 69-70, 80; PS Ex. 4).

            6.  Stamp stock shipments are accompanied by PS Form 17s, indicating the item number for each type of stamp, a description of that item, the quantity of each item, and the value of each item.  The Form 17s are prepared by the SDO and a separate form is prepared for each registered package.  Each form is signed by the SDO clerk who prepared the shipment and by a second SDO person as verifying the shipment.  The usual procedure is that each Form 17 is contained inside the registered package to which it applies.  On occasion, when there is a shipment of multiple packages, all Form 17s are placed in one package.  (Tr. 19, 69-70, 84; PS Ex. 7). 

            7.  On January 25, 2002, Petitioner opened the registered packages and signed six PS Form 17s, indicating that he received the types and amounts of stamps listed on those six Form 17s.  None of those six Form 17s listed the stamps that are alleged to be missing.  The total value of the stamps listed on those six Form 17s was $65,447.90.  Petitioner entered that amount into his unit reserve account.  (Tr. 69-72; PS Ex. 3; Form 17s attached to Petition).

            8.  A few days after January 25, 2002, the District Accounting Office noted that the Bustleton Station had not “picked up,” i.e., had not entered into its unit reserve account, a package of stamps shown on SDO records as having been shipped to Bustleton on January 23, 2002.  A Form 17 from the SDO, signed and verified by two SDO employees, listed 300 books of “United We Stand” stamps – total value $2,040, shipped to Bustleton.  A handwritten entry on the Form 17 notes that these stamps were shipped as registry number R309958415.  The accounting office initiated inquiries to Bustleton and eventually the Postal Inspection Service conducted an investigation.  These stamps have not been found.  (Tr. 10-12, 19-20; PS Ex. 3; PS Ex. 7).

            9.  When interviewed by the Postal Inspectors, Petitioner acknowledged that he signed the Form 3883 indicating that he received item number R309958415.  He also said that he received a lot of stock on January 25 and did not confirm that all the item numbers matched the numbers listed on the Form 3883.  (PS Ex. 3).

DECISION

            Section 723 of Postal Service Handbook DM-901, governing the handling of registered mail, holds postal employees “personally responsible for the wrong delivery, depredation, or loss of any registered mail because of negligence or disregard of instructions.”  Also, as custodian of the unit reserve account, Petitioner is held to the standard set out in Postal Service Handbook F‑1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141, which states 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.” 

            The sole issue in this case is whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the $2,040 of stamps alleged to be missing arrived at Bustleton Station on January 25, 2002.  If they did, Petitioner is liable under either standard quoted above because he signed for the package in which they were purportedly contained.

            Petitioner contends that he never received the $2,040 of United We Stand stamps and, therefore, committed no error by not entering them into his unit reserve account.  He does not dispute that registered item number R309958415 arrived at Bustleton Station on January 25, 2002, or that he signed for it.  He argues that Respondent has not proved what was contained in that registered package.

            Respondent’s Exhibit 7 is a PS Form 17, signed by the same two SDO employees who signed the six Form 17s that Petitioner agreed that he received on January 25, 2002.  Exhibit 7 says that registered item number R309958415 contained $2,040 of United We Stand stamps.  Other than Petitioner’s claim that he did not receive them, there is no evidence to suggest that the SDO personnel mis-labeled the package.  Petitioner offered no evidence as to what, if not the United We Stand stamps, was in item number R309958415.  He simply says that he entered into his unit reserve all the stamps that were in the shipment.

            I find that Exhibit 7, along with the other documents and the testimony of Ms. Woodruff and Ms. Solomon, is sufficient to establish that these stamps were received at Bustleton on January 25, 2002.  It is possible, of course, that someone took item number R309958415 from the hamper before Petitioner arrived to take possession of the registered articles.  This type of speculation does not help Petitioner, however, because he signed the Form 3883 indicating that he took possession of item number R309958415.

            Petitioner has not substantiated his claim that Respondent’s system for distributing stamp stock to its post offices provides no way for him to know how much stock he is supposed to be receiving in any particular shipment.  It is the receiver’s responsibility to insure that every registered item he signs for is present, that he opens every registered package that he signs for, and that every stamp stock item contained in every package that he opens matches what is listed on the corresponding Form 17.  It is his responsibility to insure that he has received everything the SDO reports to have shipped. 

            Respondent has proved by a preponderance of evidence that it suffered a loss of $2,040 for which Petitioner is accountable.  The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $2,040 from Petitioner’s salary.

                                                                        Bruce R. Houston
                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  This case was dismissed on August 8, 2002, because Petitioner failed to provide information necessary to complete the Petition.  Petitioner then filed the necessary information and, based on some extenuating circumstances, the Dismissal was revoked and the case was reinstated.

[2] The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from Arlington, VA.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

[3]  References to the hearing transcript are “Tr._.”  References to numbered exhibits attached to Respondent’s Answer will be “PS Ex._.”