In the Matter of the Petition by

REBECCA X. FICKLER
4815 SW 114th Court

at

Miami, FL 33165-6014

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-57

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Judith Braxton
7910 NW 25th Street, Suite 200
Miami, FL 33122-1622

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Luis Cadavid
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
2200 NW 72nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33152-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Rebecca Fickler, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated January 17, 2002, from her supervisor.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $680.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was responsible.

            A hearing was held in Miami, Florida on March 22, 2002.[1]  The Postal Service presented testimony from Candace McGregor, a finance expert, and Brenda Allen, a clerk at the Coconut Grove Station.  Petitioner testified in her own behalf and also presented testimony from Jacquelyn Marrah, a supervisor, and Alice Granberry, the Coconut Grove Station Manager.  Both parties also relied on documents filed with the Petition and the Answer, and Petitioner submitted two additional documents at the hearing.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner has been a window clerk at the Coconut Grove, Florida Post Office since 1985 (Tr. 41).[2]

            2.  On May 2, 2001, at 12:04 p.m., Petitioner sold a customer 2000 34-cent stamps.  The customer paid with a check for $680.00, but Petitioner erroneously entered the transaction into the POS computer system as a credit card sale.  (Tr. 15-16, 49, 73-74; PS Ex. 7, p. 26).

            3.  Petitioner did not report the error to a supervisor when she made it, but did so at the end of her duty day and also turned in the $680.00 check.  Because she had already closed out her account for the day and neither she nor the supervisor knew how to correct the error, no correction was made at that time.  (Tr. 17, 49, 73, 80-81, 85, 87-89; PS Ex. 8, p. 4; Pet. Ex. 2).

            4.  The clerk responsible for closing out the unit on May 2, 2001, Ms. Allen, noted that the amount reported on the Unit Financial Report for that day, Form 1412, for credit card sales was $680.00 greater than the amount of credit card receipts.  She determined that it was Ms. Fickler's account that did not match and she noted this on the unit Form 1412.  (Tr. 52-56, 61; PS Ex. 9).

            5.  When the Coconut Grove unit's May 2 report of financial transactions was reviewed at the South Florida District Finance Office, the credit card discrepancy was noted, i.e., that the unit reported $1,995.21 in credit card sales when there was actually only $1,315.21.  The Finance Office then sent a Form 1908 to the Coconut Grove Post Office, noting the discrepancy and directing that the necessary adjustment be made.  (Tr. 12-14; PS Ex. 4).

            6.  The Finance Office also determined that the discrepancy was in Ms. Fickler's account and generated a Form 1556 identifying a $680.00 shortage.  Ms. McGregor, the supervisor in the Finance Office, then reviewed all of Petitioner's transactions for May 2 in an attempt to identify an error that could be corrected.  This included looking for a double entry for the $680.00 sale, i.e., one for a credit card and one for a check.  She found only the $680.00 sale that Petitioner had entered as a credit card sale.  She also reviewed Petitioner's Form 1412 for the day and noted that Petitioner had added a $680.00 check at the end of the day to the amount of money she turned in for deposit to the bank.  (Tr. 14-18; PS Ex. 7, p. 26; PS Ex. 8, p. 4).

            7.  Petitioner's Form 1412 for May 2, 2001 shows, as account identifier codes (AIC) 751 and 752, that the total amount of money (cash and checks) that she turned in at the end of the day for remission to the bank was $6,006.  The portion of the Form 1412 that shows her addition of the $680.00 check at the end of the day, shows that this $680.00 was included in the amount turned in.  (Tr. 17, 26, 37, 84; PS Ex. 8, p. 4; Pet. Ex. 1).

            8.  On Petitioner's Form 1412 for May 2, 2001, two accounting entries that are required to balance each day, AIC 400 "Cash Required" and AIC 800 "Cash Accounted for," show the same figure - $7,560.68.  (Tr. 75, 94; PS Ex. 8, p. 3; Pet. Ex. 1).

DECISION

            Petitioner's contention is that there was no loss to the Postal Service in this case.  She admits making the entry error, which no one disputes, but argues that she made one $680.00 sale on May 2, 2001, for which she received and turned in a $680.00 check.

            Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner erroneously entered the sale as a credit card sale and that no one at Coconut Grove corrected the error.  Respondent also does not dispute that Petitioner turned in the $680.00 check.  Respondent's theory of liability is that there was a real $680.00 shortage on May 2, 2001, because adding the $680.00 check would have raised the total amount of money that Petitioner would have been required to turn in at the end of the day. 

            It is Respondent's burden of proof in a case such as this to prove that the Postal Service has suffered a loss. The documentary evidence, along with the explanation offered by Ms. McGregor, is sufficient to do so.  A key document is PS Exhibit 8, part of which is Petitioner's Form 1412 for May 2, 2001.[3]  On the fourth page of Exhibit 8, a $680.00 check with the word "Add" following it is listed as part of the total "Final Deposit."  This is consistent with Petitioner's testimony and Ms. McGregor's testimony.  The same total deposit, $1,326.00, shows on the first page of the Form 1412.  The first page of the Form 1412 also shows that the $680.00 is included in the amount remitted as credit card sales.  This is clear from review of the total number of Petitioner's transactions for May 2, 2001 (PS Ex. 7), and also from the testimony of Ms. Allen and Ms. McGregor as to how the error was discovered.  Therefore, Petitioner's Form 1412 included the $680.00 twice as part of her "Disbursements" for May 2, 2001.  The $680.00 sale is not, however, included twice in the total of Petitioner's "Receipts" for May 2, 2001 on her Form 1412.  This is also clear from review of the total number of Petitioner's transactions for May 2, 2001 (PS Ex. 7).  In spite of this, Petitioner's "Receipts" and "Disbursements" for May 2, 2001 balanced on her Form 1412 (Finding #8), instead of showing a $680.00 overage of disbursements. 

            As is shown by AIC 400 on the Form 1412, between cash previously retained and transactions that occurred on May 2, 2001, Petitioner was required to account for $7,560.68 at the end of that day.  The Form 1412, in AIC 800, indicated that she had accounted for that amount.  However, included in the AIC 800 total were both the $680.00 check and the erroneous $680.00 credit card transaction.  Once the erroneous entry of $680.00 is removed from AIC 762 ("Credit Card Remitd"), AIC 800 and AIC 400, which are required to balance at the end of each day, no longer balance, but instead show a $680.00 shortage.

            One reaches the same bottom line not only from relying on the Form 1412, but by retracing all of Petitioner's transactions on May 2, 2001, compiled in PS Ex. 7.  Petitioner began the day with $100.38 "cash retained" in her drawer from the previous business day (PS. Ex. 8, p.3).  During the day she sold postage, money orders and other postal products and services totaling $7,449.90, receiving cash, checks, credit card payments and debit card payments from customers (PS Ex. 7).  At the end of the day, she retained $100.16 cash in her drawer (PS Ex. 8, p.3) and should have remitted payment to Respondent's benefit totaling $7,450.12 ($7,449.90 + $100.38 - $100.16).  However, she remitted only $6,770.12, consisting of $6,006.00 in cash, checks and a redeemed money order (PS Ex. 8, p.4), $451.70 in credit card receipts,[4] and $312.42 in debit card receipts (PS Ex. 6, PS Ex. 8, p.4).  At the end of the day on May 2, 2001, therefore, Petitioner turned in for deposit or for credit to the Postal Service's account $680.00 less than she should have, based on her sales for the day.

            Because Respondent has proved a loss from Petitioner's account, and Petitioner has presented no basis for relieving her of liability for that loss, the Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $680.00 from Petitioner's salary.

                                                                        Bruce R. Houston
                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge

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

     [2] References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._."  References to documents attached to Respondent's Answer will be "PS Ex._."  References to documents submitted by Petitioner at the hearing will be "Pet. Ex._."

     [3]  There is no reference to this Exhibit in the testimony, but the first page of Petitioner's Form 1412 was also introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and that document was used during Ms. McGregor's testimony.

     [4]  Petitioner's Form 1412 reflected $1,131.70 in credit card sales but, as discussed above, there is no doubt that this total included the $680.00 check transaction that Petitioner erroneously recorded as a credit card sale.