In the Matter of the Petition by

ERICH A. BEARUP
12478 N. Genesee Rd.

at

Clio, MI 48420-9155

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-78

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Erich A. Bearup
12478 N. Genesee Road
Clio, MI  48420-9155

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Lawrence Arnold
Labor Relations Representative
United States Postal Service
200 W. Second Street
Royal Oak, MI  48068-9410

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Erich Bearup, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated January 31, 2003, from a supervisor.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $186.04 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was accountable.

            After two telephone conferences, Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions.  Both parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Respondent submitted sworn declarations from Connie Aaron, a supervisor, and Pamela Franklin, postmaster.  Petitioner submitted some documents.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  During the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Southeast Station Post Office in Flint, Michigan (Aaron Declaration; Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets).

            2.  On January 31, 2000, Ms. Aaron, a supervisor at Southeast Station, conducted an audit of Petitioner’s stamp stock accountability, and found it to be short $279.68.  Petitioner was present during the count and initialed the first page of the count sheet, PS Form 3294.  He declined to sign the signature page and asked for a recount.  (Aaron Declaration; PS Form 3294, attached to Answer).

            3.  A recount was conducted by another supervisor the next day, February 1, 2000, and the shortage was found to be $279.03.  Petitioner was present for the count but again declined to sign the PS Form 3294.  (Aaron Declaration; PS Form 3294, attached to Answer).

            4.  Ms. Aaron issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand for $279.03 on June 6, 2000.  Sometime thereafter, Petitioner was credited with $92.99, thereby reducing the alleged debt to $186.04.  On June 14, 2002, Ms. Franklin, as part of an effort to resolve old financial matters, sent Petitioner another letter, stating that Petitioner would have until June 28, 2002 to produce any documentation pertaining to the shortage, or collection steps would be taken.  (Aaron Declaration; Franklin Declaration; letters attached to Answer).

            5.  Petitioner did not respond to the June 14, 2002 letter and, on January 31, 2003, the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued (Franklin Declaration). 

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.

            Even though Petitioner declined to sign the PS Forms 3294, there is no evidence to suggest that the counts were not done properly or that they were inaccurate.  The count of February 1, 2000, therefore, is sufficient to establish a loss of $279.03.  There is nothing in the record to show the basis of the $92.99 credit given to Petitioner, but as this was done to reduce the alleged debt, there can be no harm to him.  Respondent’s evidence, therefore, is sufficient to prove a loss of $186.04.

            Petitioner has presented no evidence to provide a basis for relieving him of the alleged debt.  He has not even stated the grounds on which he contests the validity of the debt.  The documents he submitted are training records, and notes from two people stating that Petitioner worked as a “T-6” (a supervisory clerk) for a time in 1999 and 2000, in the absence of the regular T-6.  If he is attempting to show that he lacked adequate training for that position, these documents do not prove that.  Furthermore, Petitioner presented nothing to show how this training issue is in any way related to the shortage in his account.

            Petitioner has not asserted that he should be relieved of liability on the grounds that he followed established procedures in performing his duties, and there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that he did.  The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $186.04 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge