P.S. Docket No. DCA 15-337


June 24, 2016

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

LAMONT T. PEARSON v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 15-337

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Albert Lum
Scialla Associates

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Kevin Cook
Labor Relations Specialist 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Lamont Pearson, challenges a debt assessment issued by Respondent, United States Postal Service, involving fuel purchases that it believes were improper. I conducted a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia on March 30, 2016, and the parties filed post-hearing briefs on May 23, 2016. 

I grant the Petition in part, and deny it in part. The Postal Service is entitled to collect $267.87 out of its $1,993.31 debt assessment and is prohibited from collecting the remainder.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Immediately prior to January 2014, the Postal Service employed Mr. Pearson as a postmaster in Maryland, in its Capital District. While he worked in the Capital District, Mr. Pearson held a Voyager Z Card (Z Card) with an individual PIN.  (Resp. Exh. 1). 
  2. Z cards are assigned to offices, and may be used for certain vehicle-related expenses such as car washes. Fuel purchases are charged to a Voyager Fleet Card (Fleet Card), which is assigned to the vehicle being fueled.  However, Z Cards also may be used for fuel purchases, or repairs, if the vehicle’s Fleet Card has been lost, stolen or damaged.  If a Z Card is used to purchase fuel, the holder is required to send receipts to the appropriate Vehicle Maintenance Facility for input into an accounting system, reconciliation and approval.  Because any PIN can authorize a Z Card purchase, all Z Card activity is required to be approved by the site manager for the location to which the Z Card has been issued.  (Pet. Exh. 1; Tr. 47, 50-51, 53, 68). 
  3. In January 2014, Mr. Pearson began a series of detail assignments in the Atlanta District (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 18-20, 85). The Postal Service provided Mr. Pearson with the use of government cars for authorized business during his details.  Authorized business use included commuting from his temporary residence to his assigned post office, as well as travel for life essentials.  (Tr. 20-21 32-34, 37, 59, 85, 91).  
  4. The Postal Service did not provide Mr. Pearson with a Fleet Card for the government cars he used while on detail in the Atlanta District. Instead, Mr. Pearson continued to use the Capital District’s Z Card.  (Tr. 86).  He used the Z Card to purchase fuel to commute from his temporary residence, and for other authorized business such as transferring and delivering mail and fueling carriers’ vehicles (Tr. 95-96, 99, 105-111). 
  5. Mr. Pearson transferred permanently to the Atlanta District in September or October 2014, at which time he began using his personal vehicle rather than a government car. He continued to use the Z Card until April 2015.  (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 85, 96, 112). 
  6. While using either a government car or his personal car for authorized business purposes, Mr. Pearson was entitled to have the Postal Service pay for the fuel he used (Tr. 39).
  7. On 61 occasions between January 2014 and April 2015, Mr. Pearson purchased fuel using the Z Card. The Postal Service paid $2,076.54 for those purchases.  (Resp. Exh. 1 at 9-11).
  8. Because Voyager statements for the Capital District’s Z Card included fuel purchased in the Atlanta District using Mr. Pearson’s PIN, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was contacted in April 2015 to investigate Mr. Pearson (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 67-68). An OIG agent concluded that between January 2014 and April 2015, Mr. Pearson used the Capital District’s Z Card to make 60 unauthorized fuel purchases totaling $1,993.31 (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 54-55).  The OIG allowed only one purchase for fuel, which was used in a rental car pursuant to the Postal Service’s work travel policies, when Mr. Pearson returned home to the Capital District (Tr. 55-57).
  9. The Postal Service did not analyze whether the other 60 fuel purchases were used for non-business purposes, and it did not credit Mr. Pearson for any fuel used for business purposes (Tr. 75).
  10. Mr. Pearson used the Z Card to purchase fuel for non-business use on nine occasions, totaling $267.87. He agrees that he should reimburse the Postal Service for those transactions. (Tr. 107, 113-116, 119-120, 126).[1]
  11. On November 6, 2015, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets seeking $1,993.31 restitution from Mr. Pearson (Resp. Exh. 5).
  12. On September 3, 2015, the Postal Service issued a notice proposing to terminate Mr. Pearson’s 21-year employment, based on the OIG report and the Z Card transactions (Resp. Exhs. 1-3). On December 3, 2015, the Postal Service issued a decision terminating Mr. Pearson’s employment (Resp. Exh. 4). A challenge to that decision is pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board (Petition; Tr. 159).
  13. On December 20, 2015, Mr. Pearson filed a Petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act, explaining that previously he had mistakenly believed that the Merit Systems Protection Board would address the debt collection dispute. The Postal Service waived any claim of untimeliness. (January 12, 2016 Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference at 1).

 
DECISION 

The Postal Service contends that it paid for fuel improperly charged by Mr. Pearson that he used for non-business purposes. It claims that by using the fuel for non-business purposes, Mr. Pearson embezzled money for which it is entitled to restitution.  As for which fuel purchases were used for business, as opposed to non-business purposes, the Postal Service argues that all such information is in Mr. Pearson’s exclusive control.  The Postal Service maintains therefore, that I should presume that the fuel improperly purchased with the Z Card by Mr. Pearson in all 60 transactions for which it seeks payment was used for non-business purposes, as the Postal Service should not be required to prove a negative. 

Mr. Pearson argues that he was unaware that fuel purchases he made using the Z Card were improper. He insists that he used the majority of the fuel for business purposes.  He asserts, therefore, that the Postal Service has not been harmed because it would have been required to pay for those fuel purchases had they been made using a Fleet Card, or reimbursed through travel or relocation processes.  Mr. Pearson agrees that he should reimburse the Postal Service for the fuel he purchased for non-business purposes.  However, he seeks an offset against that liability for relocation and travel expenses for which he did not apply.      

A debt may be owed for government property taken for personal use or personal gain, and it may be collected if the Postal Service satisfies its burden of proving that debt. See Peter G. Harris, AO 09-41 (I.D. August 26, 2009); Angela Rhodes, DCA 06-23 (May 10, 2006); Albertha Johnson, DCA 04-71 (August 23, 2004).  Mr. Pearson does not dispute that he made the 60 fuel purchases which total $1,993.31.  The issue before me is whether each purchase was for business or non-business use. 

Mr. Pearson admits that nine of the purchases totaling $267.87 were for non-business use. Mr. Pearson argues as a defense that he was entitled to travel, relocation, and other benefits that would have offset such liability. I express no opinion whether Mr. Pearson may be entitled to payments from the Postal Service for which he did not apply, and this decision does not affect his ability to pursue recovery using appropriate mechanisms.  I will not, however, offset any potential credits, which in any event have not been proved with any specificity, against the $267.87 debt that Mr. Pearson has admitted he owes. 

Mr. Pearson’s Z Card fuel purchases improperly shifted payment responsibility between districts, and he violated a variety of postal policies and procedures including failing to provide fuel transaction receipts for accounting and reconciliation purposes (Findings 2, 4, 5, 8). Although Mr. Pearson’s ignorance of the proper procedures to purchase fuel is no excuse, the Postal Service must prove that the improper Z Card use caused a loss.  

The Postal Service has not shown that the remaining 51 purchases totaling $1,725.44 were used for non-business purposes. It is clear that Mr. Pearson used the overwhelming majority of fuel at issue for authorized business (Findings 3, 4, 6). Fuel used by Mr. Pearson for business purposes was payable by the Postal Service had Mr. Pearson utilized appropriate reimbursement mechanisms. The Postal Service, however, simply assessed Mr. Pearson for all fuel purchased without analyzing which fuel purchases were used for non-business purposes (Findings 6, 9). 

By its emphasis on Mr. Pearson not having provided receipts for the disputed charges, the Postal Service suggests that it unfairly has been prejudiced. However, the Voyager fuel transaction reports relied on by the OIG include the same information normally found in receipts - dates, fueling locations, amounts of fuel purchased, and costs for all 61 Z Card transactions (Resp. Exh. 1 at 9-11).  Mr. Pearson credibly testified in detail about those fuel purchases, and provided candid admissions when he recalled purchases that he made for personal use.  Based on his testimony, I have found that all assessed fuel purchases were used for business purposes except for the fuel purchased in the nine transactions that Mr. Pearson has admitted were used for non-business reasons.[2]  (Finding 10).   

Although Mr. Pearson improperly used the Z Card to make otherwise permissible fuel purchases for business use, the Postal Service was not harmed financially because it would have been required to pay for those charges had Mr. Pearson utilized other, more appropriate payment or reimbursement mechanisms.[3]  While Mr. Pearson’s use of an improper fuel purchase mechanism may reflect poor judgment, this Debt Collection Act proceeding is not the appropriate forum to address job performance concerns.  See Ross v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-308 (January 9, 2015).  As Mr. Pearson used the vast majority of the fuel in dispute for business purposes, I will not impose personal accountability where the Postal Service has not suffered a financial loss. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

The Petition is granted in part and denied in part.

The Postal Service may collect $267.87 by involuntary administrative salary offset.

The Postal Service is prohibited from collecting the $1,725.44 remainder of the assessed debt. 

Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge

[1] The following fuel purchases, totaling $267.87, were incurred for non-business use:

June 21, 2014                $38.45,

December 29, 2014       $31.40,

January 7, 2015             $34.86,

January 19, 2015           $22.83,

February 2, 2015           $23.68,

February 5, 2015           $22.27,

March 8, 2015               $29.83,

March 13, 2015              $31.65, and

April 2, 2015                  $32.90.

[2] Many of the transactions purchased fuel that likely were used for mixed purposes. The Postal Service has not identified the number of mixed use purchases and has not provided a way to allocate the costs for mixed business/non-business use.  I have assessed the imperfect record before me though, to make the most reasonable determinations possible of business use that I could.  Even if I were to find the Postal Service’s argument persuasive that once it demonstrated improper purchases in violation of postal policies, a rebuttable presumption should apply in its favor because Mr. Pearson was in exclusive control of the information concerning his fuel use, I believe that his testimony rebutted that presumption.  As the Postal Service has acknowledged, the essential information is within Mr. Pearson’s knowledge, and my assessment of his credibility has been important to that conclusion.  I note that I excused Mr. Pearson from accountability for a July 30, 2014 fuel transaction in Elkridge, Maryland.  That transaction is similar to the sole transaction that the OIG agent decided not to assess due to permissible travel home (Finding 8).   

[3] I understand the Postal Service’s emphasis on fuel purchases between October 2014 and April 2015 while Mr. Pearson used the Z Card to purchase fuel for his personal car following the end of his details.  During this period, Mr. Pearson would not have been entitled to use Postal Service-paid fuel for commuting, which undoubtedly he did.  However, he also used fuel for business purposes in this period.  Based on Mr. Pearson’s testimony, I found him accountable for eight out of the 37 fuel transactions in that period.  With the limited evidence available to me, I believe these accountable transactions address that concern.