In the Matter of the Petition by

ARNEL L. CARTER

P.S. Docket No. DCA 05-233

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Arnel L. Carter

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Vicki L. Benson
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Arnel L. Carter, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his officer-in-charge on December 12, 2005.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $6,587.40 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a salary overpayment.

            Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions.  The parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Respondent filed an unsworn witness statement and some additional pay records.  Petitioner filed no additional evidence.  The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  During part of calendar year 2004, Petitioner was performing active military service.  The correct payroll code for his Postal Service employment status during this time was: 044 – Military Leave Without Pay (LWOP).  (Petition; Answer, Ex. 3; Koreiwo statement).

            2.  Because of errors by the supervisor responsible for making entries into the Time and Attendance Collection System (TACS), Petitioner was paid by the Postal Service for many hours when he should have been carried in a non-pay Military LWOP status.  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 2; Koreiwo statement).

            3.  The incorrect entries were in pay periods 18, 19, and 24-26 of 2004.  These covered August 14-27, and October 31 – December 10, 2004.  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 2; Koreiwo statement).

            4.  For the pay periods noted above, and while Petitioner should have been carried in Military LWOP status, he was paid a total gross pay of $7,189.06 by the Postal Service.  Deductions were made in each pay period for taxes, social security, Medicare, retirement, union dues, Thrift Savings Plan contributions, and allotments for child support and loan repayments.  The remainder, a total of $2,105.80, was direct deposited into Petitioner’s bank account.  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 5).

DECISION

            In his Petition, Petitioner acknowledged that he was erroneously paid, but argues that he was in no way responsible for the “mistake,” and therefore, should not have to endure the hardship of repaying the money.  He also states that the alleged debt, $6,587.40, is far more than was deposited to his account.

            Although Respondent presented detailed pay records for each of the pertinent pay periods, showing the gross salary and all the specific deductions, Respondent’s evidence does not explain how the specific debt, $6,587.40, was calculated.

            Without a sworn statement from a payroll expert to explain the consequences of the many different types of deductions when an overpayment is to be collected back, we must make some assumptions, and there is no clear path in the numbers themselves to arrive at $6,587.40.

            Petitioner’s argument that he should not have to repay the money at all because he was not responsible for the error is without merit.

            As to Petitioner’s point that the amounts actually deposited in his account do not add up to the alleged debt, the evidence makes clear that this is due to the many deductions taken from the gross pay.  Many of these deductions, such as the allotments for child support and two loan repayments, constitute money paid to Petitioner even though it never passed through his hands.  Examining the pay journals submitted by Respondent (Ex. 1), those three items add to a total of $2,422.69 for the five pay periods involved.

            Proper treatment of many other deductions is much less clear, however.  It would seem that many of these deductions; for example, taxes, social security, the TSP contribution, retirement contribution, Medicare, and perhaps union dues, are items that the Postal Service can simply “take back” from whatever government entity they were paid to.  Without a definitive explanation from someone able to illuminate the workings of the payroll system, we must insure that an employee pays back the same money only one time.  The burden of making these matters clear in the record is on Respondent.  If there is uncertainty, as there is here, Petitioner gets the benefit of the doubt.

            The Petition is granted in part and denied in part.  Respondent may collect $4,528.49 ($2,105.80 + $2,422.69) from Petitioner’s salary.^[1]

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  In the Petition, Petitioner claimed repayment would be a hardship.  This was discussed with the parties in a telephone conference on January 20, 2006.  Petitioner was advised that, if he wished to argue that the proposed offset schedule would constitute a hardship, he should submit supporting evidence and propose an alternate repayment schedule.  As he did not do so, Respondent may collect at the rate proposed.