March 29, 2012

In the Matter of the Petition by
ANITA Y. BELL

P.S. Docket No. DCA 11-245

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Albert E. Lum

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Janette Barnard

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

As a result of Petitioner Anita Y. Bell’s promotion to a position in a new duty station, Respondent, United States Postal Service, paid certain relocation benefits to her and on her behalf.  Upon determining that Petitioner had not moved to her new duty station, Respondent demanded that she repay the relocation benefits.  Respondent issued her a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating its intention to offset $13,517.50 from her salary to recover the benefits.  Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

A hearing was held in Waco, Texas, and the parties submitted written argument.   The following findings of fact are made based on the documents submitted and the testimony at the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

 1.  Petitioner was employed as a Customer Services Supervisor, level EAS 17, at the Mesquite, Texas Main Post Office (Respondent’s Exhibit (“Resp. Exh.”) 10).  Effective February 2, 2008, she was promoted to Manager, Customer Services, level EAS 20, in the Highlander Station of the Waco, Texas Post Office.  (Resp. Exhs. 8, 9; Hearing Transcript, page (“Tr.”) 87).
 2.  Respondent authorized relocation benefits related to Petitioner’s move to Waco.  The authorized relocation benefits were noted on PS Form 178, Specific Travel Order – Relocation & Relocation Agreement:  an advance home-finding trip to Waco, en route travel, a temporary quarters allowance, shipment of household goods, residence transactions, and a miscellaneous expense benefit.  Petitioner noted her acceptance by signing the Form 178 on February 5, 2008 in which she committed to remain at her new duty station for one year.  (Resp. Exh. 8 (PS Form 178, November 2005 (Draft)).
 3.  At the time of her transfer, the applicable relocation regulation for EAS employees was Part 3 of the December 22, 2000 edition of Respondent’s F-15 Handbook, Relocation (Non-bargaining only), revised as of March 25, 2002, and July 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “F-15 Handbook”).
 4.  Petitioner received a lump sum of $8,203 for a home-finding trip to Waco and a temporary quarters allowance, and $2,500 as a miscellaneous expense allowance.  In addition, Respondent paid the Internal Revenue Service directly on Petitioner’s behalf $2,475.96 to cover the income tax due on the relocation benefits and paid $299 for a radon inspection related to “sale of departure home.”  The final item comprising Respondent’s proposed $13,517.50 offset was $39.54 identified as “interest on disbursements.”  (Resp. Exhs. 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-24, 5; F-15 Handbook).
5.  On March 1, 2008, Petitioner signed a residential lease agreement for a 3 bedroom house in Hubbard, Texas, about 30 miles from Waco, without first visiting the house.  The rent was $375 per month for a stated 12 month lease, although it was intended by Petitioner and the lessor to cover only 6 months.  (Resp. Exhs. 1-2, 1-14, 12; Tr. 57).
6.  Petitioner’s brother lived in the Mesquite area and shared with Petitioner responsibility for providing care for their elderly mother.  In June or July of 2008, he informed Petitioner that he would be deployed to Kuwait in October 2008 (Stipulation, Tr. 7; Tr. 23, 52-53, 88-90).  Although Petitioner had intended to relocate to Waco, because she became the only caregiver for her mother, who lived with Petitioner in Mesquite, Petitioner did not move to Waco (Tr. 87-89).
7.  After her transfer, Petitioner stayed in Waco occasionally, but she retained her Mesquite residence and often commuted the 105 miles between her home in Mesquite and Waco (Tr. 24).  She never put her Mesquite home up for sale (Tr. 28) or moved her household furnishings from her home in Mesquite (Resp. Exhs. 1-18, 12; Tr. 87).  Petitioner has never changed her residence in official Postal Service records from her house in Mesquite (Resp. Exh. 7).
8.  The house Petitioner rented in Hubbard was not furnished and during the term of her lease, the utilities were never turned on (Resp. Exh. 1-22; Tr. 106).  She stayed at that house no more than four nights after her assignment to Waco (Resp. Exh. 1 (p. 8); Tr. 21).
9.  On April 19, 2011, Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Debt Determination seeking repayment of $13,517.50 for Petitioner’s “receipt of relocation benefits without fulfilling the relocation requirements.”  The accompanying “Options Available to Employee” notice explained Petitioner’s right to request reconsideration of the debt and to request waiver of the debt.  Petitioner requested neither.  (Resp. Exh. 3; Tr. 38).
10.  On July 18, 2011, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating its intention to offset $13,517.50 from her salary (Resp. Exh. 2).
11.  Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Hearing.

DECISION

Petitioner’s Entitlement to Relocation Benefits

Respondent argues that it is entitled to recover the relocation benefits paid to Petitioner or on her behalf because she did not relocate.  Petitioner acknowledges that she did not relocate but argues that extenuating circumstances—the need to provide care for her mother—excuse repayment of the benefits.  She also argues that because she stayed at her new duty station for more than a year she satisfied her obligation under Respondent’s relocation requirements.

Respondent is correct.  While Petitioner entered into a lease for premises about 30 miles from her new duty station, the house was unfurnished and the utilities were never turned on (Finding 8).  At most, Petitioner stayed there four nights during the lease (Findings 7, 8).  She retained her home in Mesquite as her permanent, official residence and never moved her household furnishings (Finding 7).  In short, Petitioner did not relocate, and she has not shown entitlement to any of the relocation benefits afforded her.  As she was not entitled to relocation benefits under Postal Service regulations, even though she fulfilled the obligation to stay at the new duty station for at least a year (Finding 2), she acquired no right to keep the relocation benefits and is obligated to repay them.  See DiSilvestro v. United States, 405 F.2d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 1968); Margaret L. Smith, P.S. Docket No. AO 11-151, February 8, 2012; Raymond J. Voisine, P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-22, March 21, 1995.  Her decision to care for her elderly mother is commendable, but it does not justify retention of unauthorized relocation benefits.

The F-15 Handbook describes a procedure whereby an employee may request a deviation from limitations on relocation benefits by submitting a request and supporting documentation to her immediate supervisor.  Ultimately it is the manager of Corporate Accounting (Headquarters) who rules on deviation requests.  (F 15 Handbook (pp. 7-8)).   Petitioner claims that she could have applied for a deviation from the limitations on her receipt of relocation benefits if she had been informed of its availability.  She blames the Waco Postmaster for not guiding her to the deviation process.  The deviation process is separate from consideration of her Petition under the Debt Collection Act.  Deviation requests are decided by the manager of Corporate Accounting, and it is not up to an administrative judge in a Debt Collection Act proceeding to determine whether the “extreme circumstances” required to justify a deviation are present in Petitioner’s case.  Moreover, there is nothing apparent in the F-15 Handbook that would prevent her from requesting a deviation now.

Amount of Benefits Recoverable

A contractor, Cartus, administers Respondent’s relocation program, and Respondent presented Cartus’ payment records that reflect payment of the amounts claimed (Finding 4, n. 3).  Petitioner questions certain of the amounts claimed by Respondent.  She acknowledges receipt of the $2,500 miscellaneous expense allowance and acknowledges receiving an additional lump sum payment, although she believes it was not so much as the $8,203 claimed by Respondent.  She claims to know nothing about the tax assistance payment and does not recall whether she requested radon testing at her Mesquite house.

I am satisfied that Cartus’ records accurately reflect payments made for lump sum, miscellaneous expenses, radon testing, and tax assistance.  Petitioner does not deny receiving the lump sum payment but offers only her vague recollection that it was not as much as $8,203.  She presented no bank or other records that would establish a different amount for the lump sum, and I credit the Cartus records.  Arranging for radon testing requires some participation on the part of the homeowner—at least making her home available—and if she did not receive the testing, Petitioner would have been expected to deny receiving it instead of merely testifying that she did not recall whether she requested it.  The tax assistance is paid directly to the Internal Revenue Service (Finding 4), and I am satisfied from Cartus’ records that it was paid on her behalf.  The $39.54 entry on Cartus’ records for “interest on disbursements” was not explained and is not recoverable.

Accordingly, Respondent may collect by offset the amount of $13,477.96.  Except as to the $39.54, the Petition is denied.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge

[1] The hearing was conducted by speaker phone, with the parties, representatives, and witnesses present in a conference room in Waco and the Administrative Judge presiding from his office in Arlington, Virginia.

[2] Petitioner’s Form 178 referred to the F-12 Relocation Handbook, but that handbook had been replaced by the F-15 Handbook for non-bargaining employee relocations (F-15 Handbook, p. 1).

[3] These amounts are reflected in records maintained by Cartus, Respondent’s relocation contractor (Tr. 32; Resp. Exhs. 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-24).

[4] Section 180 of the F-12 Handbook also describes a similar process for requesting a deviation.