P.S. Docket No. AO 13-446


September 29, 2014

In the Matter of the Administrative Offset Petition

MARK A. CURLEY v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. AO 13-446

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Stephen T. Fieweger, Esq.
Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, P.C.

APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT:
Jessica Lietaer, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service

Anjeanette Pettinger
Labor Relations Manager
United States Postal Service

INITIAL DECISION

Respondent, United States Postal Service, seeks to collect two debts from Petitioner, Mark A. Curley, by administrative offset based on alleged shortages in a unit reserve account. At the hearing,1 the Postal Service conceded one of the debts. As to the other debt, the Postal Service has not shown that it conducted a proper audit of the unit reserve account. Having failed to make that showing, the Postal Service may not collect that debt by administrative offset. Accordingly, the Petition is granted as to both debts.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Mark A. Curley was the unit reserve custodian at two postal facilities in Rock Island, Illinois (referred to, respectively, as Rock Island Main and Rock Island Downtown). Mr. Curley served as the unit reserve custodian until June 7, 2012. (Tr. 106–07).
  2. As of June 8, 2012, Mr. Curley took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act until he retired on July 31, 2012 (Tr. 77–80).
  3. On June 7, 2012, an agent from the Postal Service Office of the Inspector General (OIG) arrived at the two postal facilities in Rock Island to investigate allegations of improper activity (Tr. 13–14; Resp. Exh. 1 at 4). As part of the investigation, the OIG agent and a Postal Service employee counted the stock in the unit reserve accounts at both facilities (Tr. 32, 68–69).
  4. Mr. Curley asked his supervisor if either he or someone representing him could participate in the count. His request was denied. (Tr. 80–81).
  5. During the count, the OIG agent and the other Postal Service employee used count sheets to record their results. They did not provide copies of those sheets to Mr. Curley. (Tr. 34–35). The Postal Service did not introduce the count sheets into the record at the hearing.
  6. On August 1, 2012, the Postal Service sent Mr. Curley an invoice for $8,337.13 based on an alleged stamp stock shortage discovered during the OIG investigation at the Rock Island Downtown postal facility (Resp. Exh. 1 at 5, Exh. 28).
  7. On May 13, 2013, the Postal Service sent Mr. Curley an invoice for $828.80 based on an alleged stamp stock shortage discovered on February 2, 2013 (Resp. Exh. 29).2
  8. On December 26, 2013, Mr. Curley filed a Petition for Review challenging the alleged debts.3

DECISION

The Postal Service had originally sought to collect two debts from Mr. Curley. At the hearing, the Postal Service conceded the $828.80 debt stemming from the invoice dated May 13, 2013. I stated my intention to issue a decision finding that the Postal Service may not collect this debt by administrative offset. The Postal Service did not object. (Tr. 11–12). Accordingly, the Petition is granted as to the $828.80 debt.

As to the other alleged debt, the Postal Service asserts that there was an $8,337.13 shortage in the unit reserve account at the Rock Island Downtown facility, as evidenced by June 7, 2012 audit. When it seeks to collect such a debt, the Postal Service must show that, following a properly conducted audit, a shortage existed in an account for which an employee was accountable. See Carolann C. Mierzejewski, P.S. Docket No. DCA 12-209 (February 5, 2013). Here, it has failed to meet that burden.

The applicable postal regulations require that a unit reserve custodian be present during a stamp stock count (Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, §§ 13-3.1 and 13-4). In this case, however, the Postal Service did not allow either Mr. Curley or his representative to be present during the stamp stock count, despite Mr. Curley’s request (Findings 3–4). That deficiency, without an adequate excuse, is sufficient to invalidate the count as a basis for liability against Mr. Curley. See Shirley Williford, P.S. Docket No. AO 09-129 (March 15, 2010). Thus, the Postal Service has not shown that it is entitled to collect this debt through administrative offset.

CONCLUSION

As to the assessed debt of $828.20, the Petition is granted based on the Postal Service’s concession at the hearing. As to the assessed debt of $8,337.13, the Petition is granted because the Postal Service did not conduct a proper audit. Accordingly, the Postal Service may not collect either debt by administrative offset.
The Petition is granted.

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge

1 The hearing was held on August 26, 2014, in Milan, Illinois. I presided by telephone from my office in Arlington, Virginia.

2 The invoice does not state which facility incurred this alleged shortage.

3 Although the Petition may have been premature when it was filed, the Postal Service later issued two Notice of Debt Determination letters in June 2014 for the debts (Resp. Exhs. 28, 29). The parties have waived any further review by the Postal Service and agreed that the debts may be resolved under this Petition (Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference dated June 25, 2014).