March 16, 2010

In the Matter of the Petition by                                        

JOHN ROBERT MCDONALD                                                                                                        
at                                                                         
Ringgold, GA                        

P.S. Docket No. DCA 09-528

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         
John Robert McDonald

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     
George R. Adkisson
Manager, Labor Relations
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, John Robert McDonald, timely filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act after having received a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service.  The Notice asserted Respondent’s intention to offset $809.70 from Petitioner’s salary to recover salary overpayments that Respondent alleges were made in late 2001 through early 2003.

A hearing was conducted in Ringgold, Georgia, with the undersigned Administrative Judge presiding by speaker telephone from Arlington, Virginia.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present at the hearing site.  At the hearing, Respondent introduced testimony from a single witness – the current Ringgold Postmaster.  Petitioner testified on his own behalf.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  Petitioner has been employed at the Ringgold Post Office for over 33 years (Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 26).  During the time in issue, he was a regular rural carrier (Tr. 25).  At some point that is not clearly specified in the record, Petitioner was injured and received a limited duty assignment, resulting in his salary having been frozen at a protected rate for a period of time that is also not clearly defined in the record (Tr. 28).

2.  On March 12, 2003, Respondent issued Petitioner an invoice for an asserted debt in the amount of $809.70.  The invoice indicates that Petitioner was overpaid in pay period 26 of 2001 through pay period 1 of 2002, and from pay period 11 of 2002 through pay period 3 of 2003.  The invoice indicates that the overpayment resulted from Petitioner having been on a protected base salary for a rural route evaluated for 45 hours whereas he “should have been paid” based on a non-protected base salary on a rural route evaluated for 44 hours.  (Exhibit (Ex.) 2).  While the invoice states that Petitioner should have been issued a letter of demand, there is no indication in the record that a letter of demand was issued based on this invoice.

3. On December 1, 2009, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (Notice) for the $809.70 debt at issue (Ex. 1).  Petitioner timely challenged this action.  The Notice was prepared by the current Ringgold Postmaster based on the 2003 invoice (Tr. 9-10).  The record does not include any explanation for Respondent’s delay of over 6 ½ years in seeking to collect the alleged debt (see Tr. 11, 29).

4.  Respondent’s delay in initiating collection activities resulted in Petitioner’s loss of potentially exonerating documents (such as pay stubs and documents indicating hours and dates he worked).  It also resulted in Petitioner’s loss of memory regarding factual issues in question.  (Tr. 23, 27-29; see also argument at Tr. 35).  Nobody with any personal knowledge of the facts in issue testified (aside from Petitioner, who credibly professed an absence of memory) (Tr. 9-10, 17).

5. After Respondent issued the Notice, a letter was sent to the Ringgold Postmaster from an individual, who is named but otherwise unidentified (and the letter is unsigned) explaining certain calculations for the asserted debt (Ex. 3).  The letter attached documentation and payroll journals with a variety of calculations that, without supporting explanation, are acknowledged by Respondent largely to be indecipherable (see argument at Tr. 33-34).

6. Respondent’s sole witness could not answer why Petitioner should have been paid at a different rate than the protected rate at which he was paid, and he was unable to explain why the salary amounts that Petitioner actually were paid were incorrect (Tr. 19, 21).

7. Respondent also introduced a series of rural route evaluations for Petitioner.  Some of these evaluations include a handwritten note stating “Correct,” while others include a handwritten note stating “Incorrect.”  (Ex. 4).  The record does not include any explanation for these notations.

DECISION

            Respondent bears the burden of proving that the debt – salary overpayment to Petitioner seven years ago – exists.  See Caroline Harrington, P.S. Docket No. DCA 08-333 (May 13, 2009).  Respondent has not done so.  The debt is mostly unexplained except for an unsigned letter (written after the Notice already had been issued) by an untitled postal employee who did not testify (Findings 1-2, 5-6).  Respondent’s sole witness could not explain the basis for the salary overpayment alleged, and no explanation was offered for the conflicting documentation as to which evaluated route rates were applicable (Findings 4, 6-7).  Under such circumstances, the debt has not been proved.  See Richard Lutz, P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-255 (November 14, 2000).

Moreover, Petitioner was prejudiced in his ability to defend against the debt assessment because of the loss of relevant documents and his faded memory resulting from the unexplained long passage of time since the alleged debt arose and the invoice at issue was generated (Finding 4).  I find these circumstances prejudiced Petitioner’s ability to offer evidence in his behalf, rendering Respondent’s failure of proof even more compelling of a basis for me to render judgment in Petitioner’s favor.  See Andrea J. Russell-Brown, P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-262 (September 25, 2003).

            The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not collect the money at issue by administrative salary offset.

Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge