December 12, 2012           

In the Matter of the Petition by
TERESA L. FOWLER
at
Bloomfield, IA

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Albert E. Lum

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Brian J. Odom, Esq.

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Teresa L. Fowler, filed a petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset dated May 8, 2012, from Respondent, United States Postal Service.  Respondent seeks to collect $13,365 from Petitioner due to payments for unauthorized travel expenses.  A hearing was held in Des Moines, Iowa.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In January 2011 Respondent needed to fill the position of the officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Pella, Iowa Post Office on a short-term basis while Respondent sought a permanent replacement (Tr. 113).  The Manager of Post Office Operations (MPOO) of Area 4 of Respondent’s Hawkeye District sought recommendations from the MPOO of Area 8, an adjoining area (Tr. 113).   The Area 4 MPOO, the Area 8 MPOO, and the Postmaster of Ottumwa, Iowa, had several conversations to discuss the appointment of Petitioner to the temporary detail as the Pella OIC (Tr. 69-70, 113-15, and 159).  The Postmaster and Petitioner were close personal friends (Tr. 43-44, 174-76; Exh. 14, 14B at 27, 37-39).  Petitioner was ultimately selected for the detail (Tr. 272).
2. Area 4, as the acquiring activity, was responsible for all costs associated with the detail (Tr. 109-10, 113, 149, 150, 277).  The Area 4 MPOO would serve as Petitioner’s supervisor during the detail (Tr. 61).
3. Petitioner’s detail began on January 25, 2011, and lasted approximately twenty-three weeks (Tr. 272).  During this period, Petitioner worked in Pella for 111 days (Tr. 266, 294). 
4. Petitioner’s regular commute from home to her permanent duty station in Oskaloosa, Iowa, was fifty miles each way.  In order to travel to her detail in Pella, Petitioner traveled an additional eighteen miles for a total of sixty-eight miles.  The commute from home to Pella took approximately one hour and fifteen minutes.  (Tr. 78, 82, 227; Exh. 14).
5. The Area 4 MPOO, Area 8 MPOO, the Ottumwa Postmaster, and Petitioner did not discuss travel expenses before or during the detail (Tr. 141).  Nevertheless, during the course of the detail, Petitioner submitted twenty-three eTravel claims, one for each week (Tr. 60; Exh. 14).   Petitioner did not have prior approval for travel expenses from the Area 4 MPOO, her immediate supervisor (Tr. 62, 64).  Petitioner did not submit the eTravel claims to her supervisor, the Area 4 MPOO, for approval, but to her close personal friend, the Ottumwa Postmaster.  The Ottumwa Postmaster approved the travel claims even though he did not work in the same Area.  (Tr. 118-19, 133, 207; Exh. 14, 16).
6. Respondent paid Petitioner a total of $13,844.70 for the travel claims (Tr. 60; Exh. 12).
7. Petitioner’s travel claims included mileage for local travel between Oskaloosa and Pella on some days.  On other days, Petitioner elected to remain in Pella overnight instead of returning home.  On those days, Petitioner claimed, and was paid for, hotel and per diem expenses.  (Tr. 56-57, 152-53).
8. Petitioner did not seek advance approval from the Area 4 MPOO of her travel plans before incurring hotel and per diem expenses (Tr. 62, 64).  Had she been asked, the Area 4 MPOO would have approved the additional local travel mileage, but would not have approved the hotel or per diem expenses (Tr. 144, 147).
9. The mileage reimbursement rate during 2011 was $0.51 per mile (Tr. 297).  Thus, traveling between her permanent duty station in Oskaloosa and her detailed station in Pella would have entitled Petitioner to a total of $2,037.96 for the 111 days of her detail (i.e., 111 days x 36 miles [roundtrip from Oskaloosa to Pella] x $0.51 per mile). 
10. From the $13,844.70 paid to Petitioner, Respondent credited her with $479.70 which represented the local mileage she claimed for the days on which she did not stay overnight in Pella (Tr. 145).  Respondent demanded repayment of the $13,365 difference (i.e., $13,844.70 - $479.70 = $13,365).
11. Petitioner filed a timely Petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

DECISION

Respondent must prove that Petitioner was overpaid for the travel vouchers at issue.  Daniel L. Mourer, P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-11 (April 17, 2002).  If it does so, the burden shifts to Petitioner to show that she is entitled to keep the overpayment.  Rebecca X. Fickler, P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-57 (May 3, 2002).

Handbook F-15, Travel and Relocation, is Respondent’s regulation for travel expenses.  Handbook F-15, Section 2-1 provides that “you must . . . [p]lan your itinerary to accomplish your purpose with a minimum of time and expense. . . .”  Section 2-2.1.1 provides that “approving officials must make certain that the travel is necessary and directly related to Postal Service business. . . .”  Section 2-2.5 provides that “[t]he approving official verifies that the transportation and expenses comply with postal policy . . . and [m]ake[s] sure all charges claimed are reasonable, considering the area where they were incurred.”  Section 7-1.1.1.1 provides:
Local Travel is defined as travel to a location within a 50 mile radius of your permanent duty station in which overnight lodging is not needed.  If your destination is within a 50 mile radius of your permanent duty station and if you are required to stay overnight, your trip is considered regular travel, not local travel. . . .

 Handbook F-15, Section 7-1.1.1.2 provides:  “[f]or local travel, the Postal Service reimburses you for your actual expenses – all reasonable subsistence expenses that you incur as a result of your official travel.  You are not eligible to claim per diem. . . .” 

Petitioner claims entitlement to mileage, hotel expenses, and per diem.  With regard to mileage, Petitioner’s permanent duty station was the Oskaloosa Post Office and the detailed duty station was the Pella Post Office, eighteen miles away (Finding 4).  The Area 4 MPOO explained that she would have approved this expense if Petitioner had submitted it (Finding 8).  Based on Handbook F-15, Petitioner is entitled to mileage between Oskaloosa and Pella each day (thirty-six mile round trip) for 111 days at a rate of $0.51 per mile which totals $2,037.96 (Finding 9). 

Petitioner also argues that she is entitled to hotel and per diem expenses because these expenses were also reasonable.  Travel within fifty miles of a duty station requiring lodging is treated as regular travel.  Handbook F-15, Section 4-1.1.2, provides:  “[f]ollow the steps below to get approval for your trip: . . . [s]ubmit the completed PS Form 1011 [Travel Advance Request and Itinerary Schedule] to your immediate supervisor, who then forwards it to an approving official for approval.”  Petitioner did not provide evidence that she ever submitted a PS Form 1011 to her supervisor at the Oskaloosa Post Office or the Area 4 MPOO who was her supervisor during the detail to Pella.  Instead of seeking preapproval from her supervisor, Petitioner sought approval from her personal friend, the Ottumwa Postmaster.  (Findings 5 and 8).

Notwithstanding the fact that Petitioner did not provide the PS 1011 to her supervisor, Petitioner argues that the long work-days justify the hotel and per diem expenses.  This argument is not persuasive because Petitioner lived only an hour and fifteen minutes away from the Pella Post Office (Finding 4).  The travel time is not so great so as to require Petitioner to stay overnight.

Finally, Petitioner argues that hotel and per diem expenses are reimbursable because they were approved by the Ottumwa Postmaster who had approval authority in the eTravel system.  I reject this argument because these travel expenses were outside the Ottumwa Postmaster’s area of responsibility.  Moreover, the Ottumwa Postmaster’s personal relationship with Petitioner renders the approval ineffective. 

CONCLUSION

The petition is granted in part and denied in part.  Respondent paid Petitioner a total of $13,844.70 for the eTravel claims.  The Petition is granted to the extent that Ms. Fowler should be credited with local mileage in the amount of $2,037.96 (not $479.70).  The Petition is denied for the remainder.  Respondent may collect $11,806.74 from Petitioner.

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge

^1. Respondent’s Hawkeye District, which includes the state of Iowa and part of Illinois, has eight numbered areas (Tr. 85, 108).

^2. “eTravel” is the automated travel expense system used by Respondent.

^3. The Postal Service terminated Ms. Fowler’s employment.  Ms. Fowler subsequently challenged the termination before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).  Teresa L. Fowler v. United States Postal Service, Docket No. CH-0752-12-0120-I-1 (October 2, 2012).  The MSPB denied her challenge.  Id. at 18.  While I have read the decision, I have reached my own conclusions based on the record before me.