January 11, 2013

In the Matter of the Petitions by
AARON THORNE

P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 12-318 and DCA 12-319

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Albert E. Lum

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Claire M. Mankowski

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Respondent, United States Postal Service, seeks to collect from Petitioner, Aaron Thorne, two alleged debts in the amounts of $378.71 and $1,962.93.  The debts are based on an overpayment of salary to Petitioner.  Petitioner filed timely Petitions for Hearing on September 5, 2012.  The Petition for Hearing related to the $378.71 is docketed as DCA 12-318, and the Petition for Hearing related to the $1,962.93 is docketed as DCA 12-319.  Because these debts relate to the same facts, the matters were consolidated for hearing which was held on November 14, 2012, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.   In its post-hearing brief, Respondent conceded that the alleged $378.71 debt (DCA 12-318) is not owed.  Accordingly, that case is not addressed further in this decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In the Fall of 2011, Petitioner worked as a Manager of Customer Services at the Swissvale Post Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  His grade in that position was EAS-20 and his salary was $83,565 per annum (equivalent to $40.1755 per hour based on 2,080 hours in a work year).  On December 13, 2011, the Pittsburgh Postmaster reassigned Petitioner to the Pittsburgh Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) as a Supervisor at an EAS-17 grade with a salary of $73,639 per annum (equivalent to $35.4034 per hour based on 2,080 hours in a work year).   (Exh. 1 and 5).
2. Petitioner began work at the VMF on December 19, 2011, which was his first scheduled work day in pay period 1 of 2012 (pay period 1-2012).  For reasons not explained in the record, however, during pay periods 1-2012 through 6-2012, Petitioner was incorrectly paid at his prior EAS-20 rate, rather than the lower EAS-17 rate.  (Exh. 5).
3. The difference in gross pay between the EAS-20 and EAS-17 grades was $381.76 per pay period (Exh. 5).  In addition, a total of $143.23 more in retirement, social security, medicare, along with federal, state, and local taxes was deducted from the EAS-20 pay than was deducted from the EAS-17 pay.  Thus, the net difference paid to Petitioner at the EAS-20 rate was $238.53 per pay period.  (Exh. 5, pp. 19-22).
4. In addition to his regular pay, Petitioner received $5,142.46 in gross compensation at the EAS-20 rate during pay period 3-2012 for 128 hours of annual leave, as part of the Postal Service Annual Leave Exchange Program (Exh. 5, pp. 13-14).  Had he instead been compensated for those hours at the EAS-17 rate, he would have received $4,531.64, or $610.82 less (see Finding 1).
5. In a Letter of Debt Determination dated July 4, 2012, followed by a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated August 22, 2012, Respondent demanded that Petitioner repay the amount of $1,962.93 because of an alleged overpayment during pay periods 1-2012 through 6-2012.  Petitioner filed a timely Petition.

DECISION

Respondent alleges that Petitioner was overpaid in the amount of $1,962.93 and, in its post-hearing brief, provides calculations that it argues demonstrate that the amount sought is correct.  Petitioner argues only that Respondent has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the amount is exactly right and “not a penny more or less,” and that the Petition should be granted for that reason.

Petitioner is correct that there was no testimony explaining exactly how the amount demanded was calculated.  However, during the course of the hearing, Respondent asked that it be allowed to provide calculations with its brief that would demonstrate that the amount sought had been correctly calculated.  Respondent’s representative was advised that she would “have a chance to argue the numbers in the documents that you have, and you can provide more specific calculations as part of that.”  (Tr. 67).

The calculations provided by Respondent in its brief appear to be largely correct and are accepted, except as follows.  The net difference paid to Petitioner (as reflected in Finding 3) which may be recovered by Respondent was only $238.53 per pay period which for the six pay periods in question totals $1,431.18.

With regard to the additional compensation that Petitioner received as part of the annual leave exchange, Respondent’s calculations contain tax and other deductions that do not appear to be based on documents in the record, and Respondent has cited none.  However, the deduction rate of 37.52% can be inferred from evidence in the record.   Applying the deduction rate of 37.52% to the gross pay difference of $610.82 for the annual leave exchange (see Finding 4) yields $381.65 as the net additional amount paid to Petitioner.   Thus, the total amount to be repaid by Petitioner is $1,431.18 for the overpayment of salary plus $381.65 for the overpayment of exchanged leave, for a total of $1,812.83.

ORDER

The Petition in P.S. Docket No. DCA 12-318 is granted.  The Petition in P.S. Docket No. DCA 12-319 is denied, except that the amount to be repaid by Petitioner is reduced by $150.10 from $1,962.93 to $1,812.83.

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge

^[1] The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Judge from the Judicial Officer’s courtroom in Arlington, Virginia.  All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

^[2] Petitioner appealed the adverse action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied the appeal (Exh. 3).  While I have read this decision, I did not consider it in my ruling because it is not relevant to this Debt Collection Act proceeding.

^[3] Citations to the hearing transcript are abbreviated to “(Tr. ___)” and citations to exhibits are “(Exh. ___).”

^[4] The calculations are as follows:  128 hours x $40.1755 per hour = $5,142.46; 128 hours x $35.4034 per hour = $4,531.64; $5,142.46 - $4,531.64 = $610.82.

^[5] The calculations are as follows:  $143.23/$238.53 = 37.52% (see Finding 3).

^[6] The calculations are as follows:  1 – 0.3752 = 0.6248.  $610.82 x 0.6248 = $381.65.