In the Matter of the Petition by

ERNESTO J. TIJERINA
1409 South 14th Avenue

at

Edinburg, TX 78539-5637

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-242

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

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Louis Bazaldua
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
809 Nueces Bay Boulevard
Corpus Christi, TX  78469-0404

FINAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Ernesto Tijerina, filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the October 24, 2003 Final Decision in this case.  Respondent sought to collect $4,588.70 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was responsible.  The Decision held Petitioner liable for the alleged debt.

            Petitioner attached several documents to the Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that some of these, labeled Exhibits A-F and K-M, show that certain stamp stock was “never shipped to the retail unit.”  This is apparently in support of the argument made at the hearing that a large amount of stamps was issued to the retail floor stock from the unit reserve without being properly entered into the POS system, thus accounting for an apparent shortage in the unit reserve.

            A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for a party to submit new evidence, without some showing as to why that evidence could not have been presented at the hearing.  To do so would deny the opposing party an opportunity to explain, challenge, or rebut such evidence.  Petitioner has made no showing that supports accepting these new documents at this time.  In addition, two of the documents, Exhibits K and M, are handwritten notes with nothing to show when, or by whom, they were created.^[1]  The Form 1412s, Exhibits A-F, appear to be authentic, but it is unclear how they support Petitioner’s claim that Respondent did not prove a loss.

            Petitioner also argues that, contrary to the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses, postal regulations do not require a “third witness” when stamp stock is transferred from the unit reserve to the retail floor stock.  Even assuming that the documents Petitioner has now presented, Exhibits G-J, support this contention, the finding that Petitioner did not always use a third witness (Final Decision, Finding #9) was not crucial to the decision.  This issue might have had more importance had Respondent used it to rebut a claim by Petitioner that he “followed the postal procedures established when performing [his] duties.”  Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141.  Petitioner did not present such a defense, and even had he done so, the other portion of Finding #9, i.e., that he did not always make POS entries contemporaneously with issuing stock, would have tended to rebut it.

            Finally, Petitioner re-argues the point that “it was the Postmaster’s responsibility to assign another person to take over the main stock when Mr. Tijerina was placed on an extended detail.”  This issue was addressed in the Final Decision, and Petitioner has presented nothing new in his Motion for Reconsideration.

            The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  Exhibit L is already part of the record as Pet. Ex. 1.