February 20, 2018

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

EDWARD CRAWFORD JR. v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 13-312

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Edward Crawford, Jr.

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Tamara R. Johnson
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Edward Crawford, Jr., challenges a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under the Debt Collection Act asserting a debt of $8,290.63 owed to Respondent, United States Postal Service.  For the reasons set out below, I find that the Postal Service may collect $2,479.97 from Mr. Crawford.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Crawford was the unit reserve custodian of the Stockyards Station in Chicago, Illinois, at all times relevant to this dispute (Tr. 13).
2. In May 2012, Mr. Crawford sent a large number of stamps to the Stamp Destruction Office (SDO) in Kansas City, Missouri.  As part of that process, Mr. Crawford completed several Form 17s (Stamp Requisition/Stamp Return), each of which listed and described a part of the inventory being sent to the SDO (Exhs. 100–16; Tr. 17, 53–56).
3. The unit reserve account at the Stockyards Station did not, however, receive credit for $5,025.16 worth of stamps associated with three Form 17s for the May 2012 shipment (Tr. 28–29, 53; Exhs. 102–104).
4. In the months following the shipment of these stamps to the SDO, Mr. Crawford spoke to his supervisor about the fact that the unit reserve account had not received credit for the stamps returned with those three Form 17s.  In response to Mr. Crawford’s inquiry, his supervisor exchanged emails and had several telephone conversations with the SDO Accounting Help Desk.  (Tr. 16–17; Exhs. 117–21)
5. The unit reserve account was never properly credited for all the stamps that Mr. Crawford sent to the SDO in May 2012.  Because of a minor mathematical error on one of the disputed Form 17s, the SDO returned a credit to the Chicago District Office, rather than applying the credit directly to the Stockyards Station unit reserve account.  (Tr. 17–18, 27–29).
6. The Postal Service did not transfer this credit from the Chicago District’s account to the Stockyards Station unit reserve account because the error crossed over from one fiscal year to the next (Tr. 18, 29–30).
7. Although she could not identify the exact amount of the credit, the station manager admitted that the Stockyards Station unit reserve account should have received at least a $4,000 credit for the stock Mr. Crawford returned to the SDO in May 2012 (Tr. 18–19, 29, 31).
8. Mr. Crawford and another Postal Service employee conducted a unit reserve count on March 23, 2013.  The acting manager of the Stockyards Station was also present and observed the count, although she did not participate in the actual counting process.  (Tr. 11-12, 15, 59–60).
9. The count showed a total shortage of $8,304.48 in three areas: (1) $5,824.51 for redeemed postage stock; (2) $1,685.50 for item conversion; and (3) $794.47 for missing stamps (Exh. 6).
10. On July 23, 2013, the Postal Service sent Mr. Crawford an invoice for $8,290.63 based on a stamp stock shortage discovered during the March 23 count (Exh. 1 at 2).¹
11. On August 9, 2013, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under the Debt Collection Act against Mr. Crawford stating the Postal Service’s intention to offset Mr. Crawford’s salary to collect the debt.  The Notice then stated the Postal Service’s intention to deduct approximately $500 from each of Mr. Crawford’s next 17 paychecks to satisfy the debt.  (Exh. 1 at 1).

DECISION

The Postal Service has the initial burden to prove that an actual loss exists in the unit reserve and that Mr. Crawford was the accountable unit reserve custodian.  Initially, it is sufficient for the Postal Service to prove that a stock shortage existed after a properly conducted stamp stock count.  If the Postal Service meets this initial burden, Mr. Crawford then has the burden to prove any valid offsets or alleviating circumstances that might excuse the debt. Zeola H. Brady, DCA 10-190, 2011 WL 13238568 (February 11, 2011).
Mr. Crawford does not challenge the fact that he was the unit reserve custodian at the Stockyards Station.  Nor does he challenge the fact that the March 23, 2013 count showed a shortage of $8,304.48.  The Postal Service has also proved that the count was conducted properly (Finding 8).  The Postal Service has thus met its initial burden.  Manuel L. Garcia, DCA 07-200, 2007 WL 9676914 (October 11, 2007).  Accordingly, I turn to Mr. Crawford’s assertion that he should nonetheless be excused from the debt.
Redeemed Stock
Mr. Crawford sent a large quantity of stamp stock to the SDO in May 2012 (Finding 2).  The Postal Service concedes that the Stockyards Station unit reserve account did not receive the proper credit for this redeemed stock.  The station manager agreed that the unit reserve account should have received more credit than it did, and that the failure to credit the unit reserve account resulted from the Postal Service’s inability to transfer the proper credit from the Chicago District’s account to the Stockyards Station unit reserve account.  (Findings 3–7).
Mr. Crawford cited three Form 17s that he believes have not been credited to his account, which totaled $5,025.16 (Finding 3).  The Postal Service did not specifically address which Form 17s were not properly credited to the unit reserve account, but the station manager agreed that the unit reserve account should have been credited with at least $4,000 for redeemed stock (Finding 7).
Based on this evidence and testimony, I find that Mr. Crawford has presented a valid excuse that relieves him from accountability for the missing redeemed stock.  More specifically, he has shown that the Postal Service did not suffer an actual loss related to the redeemed stock.  Further, because the Postal Service was not able to establish the exact amount of the credit the unit reserve account should have received, I question the entire amount claimed by the Postal Service for the redeemed stock.  Robert L. Porter, DCA 10-290, WL 13238573 (February 15, 2011)(permitting offsets against a unit reserve shortage where the Petitioner can establish that the Postal Service has not suffered an actual loss).  Thus, Mr. Crawford is not accountable for the debt related to the redeemed stock.
Item Conversion and Missing Stamp Stock
As to the item conversion stock, Mr. Crawford has not presented any excuses—valid or otherwise—for the missing items (Tr. 62).  Thus, as the unit reserve custodian, he is accountable for those missing items.
As for the missing stamp stock, Mr. Crawford alleges that he may have either sent those stamps to the SDO or transferred them to the retail account.  He has not, however, presented any credible evidence to support either argument.
First, the evidence does not support Mr. Crawford’s argument that he sent the stamps to the SDO.  His description of the stamps allegedly sent to the SDO does not correspond with the stamps missing from the unit reserve account.  Although some of the same types of stamps were sent to the SDO as were missing from the unit reserve, the quantities do not correspond.  For the other types of missing stamps, Mr. Crawford could not establish that either the same types or quantities were sent to the SDO from the unit reserve account.  (Tr. 62–64).
Second, Mr. Crawford has not shown that the missing stamp stock was transferred to the retail account.  There is no evidence that a retail count was conducted concurrently with the unit reserve count, the results of which Mr. Crawford might have been able to use to account for the missing stamps.  Given that lack of evidence, however, Mr. Crawford is accountable for the missing stamp stock.

ORDER

The Petition is granted in part and denied in part.  The Postal Service may not collect the debt for the redeemed postage stock.  It may, however, collect $2,479.97 for the item conversion and stamp stock shortages.

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge