January 30, 2018

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

DANIEL PRADO v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 16-200

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Daniel Prado

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Rose M. Barner
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner Daniel Prado challenges a debt assessed by Respondent United States Postal Service for health insurance premiums.  The Postal Service met its burden of proof.  Mr. Prado did not prove a defense to excuse the debt.  Rather, Mr. Prado argues that compensation errors during his disability resulted in overpayments that offset his debt.  Because Mr. Prado’s claims are beyond my authority in this Debt Collection Act case, I rule in favor of the Postal Service.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Prado, a letter carrier in Corpus Christi, Texas, was injured in 2013 (Tr. 24; Petition; Pet. Exh. C).  By the end of 2015, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) was paying Mr. Prado every four weeks (Pet. Exh. C at 3-5; Tr. 12).  OWCP collected lump-sum deductions from Mr. Prado’s gross compensation for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), life insurance, and the Federal Employees Dental/Vision Program (FEDVIP) (Pet. Exh. C; Tr. 17).
2. Mr. Prado returned to work in January, 2016.  On January 12, 2016, responsibility for the employer’s share of Mr. Prado’s FEHB premium transferred from OWCP back to the Postal Service.  (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 9-10).  January 12 fell a few days after the start of Week 1, Pay Period 2 of 2016, and a few days after the start of OWCP’s 28-day pay period (Tr. 12).  OWCP’s last two payments to Mr. Prado covered the periods of December 13, 2015 through January 9, 2016, and January 10 through January 11, 2016.  OWCP paid Mr. Prado a prorated amount for January 10 and 11, and also collected a prorated lump-sum deduction for those two days.  (Pet. Exh. C at 5; Tr. 12).
3. The Postal Service did not deduct Mr. Prado’s share of his FEHB premium for pay periods 2 and 3 of 2016.  The prorated amount of his FEHB premium for pay period 2 is $165.88, and the full amount of his premium for pay period 3 is $211.10.  (Tr. 5, 12; Resp. Exh. 3; Petition¹ at 5).
4. On July 19, 2016, the Postal Service sent Mr. Prado a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset stating that he owed a total debt of $376.98 for unpaid FEHB premiums in pay periods 2 and 3 of 2016 (Petition at 5).
5. Mr. Prado filed a Petition for Hearing on August 8, 2016.

DECISION

The Postal Service argues that Mr. Prado owes it $376.98 because he was enrolled in FEHB as of January 12, 2016, when the Postal Service resumed responsibility for the FEHB payments, but failed to deduct his premiums until two pay periods later.  Mr. Prado argues that he did pay his premiums.  He also argues that he does not owe the debt because he made other overpayments to the Postal Service.
Under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service has the initial burden to establish that a debt exists for which an employee is liable.  See, e.g., Saunders v. United States Postal Service, AO 14-307, 2015 WL 13647622 (I.D. February 24, 2015).  Part of the cost of an employee’s health insurance is paid by the Postal Service, and the remainder of the premium is paid by the employee through payroll deductions each pay period.  Employees incur a debt to the Postal Service in any pay period during which they are enrolled in FEHB but the Postal Service does not deduct the employee’s share of the premium.  See 5 C.F.R. § 890.502(a)(1); e.g., Saunders, AO 14-307.  Where the Postal Service seeks reimbursement for uncollected FEHB premiums, it must prove that an employee was enrolled in FEHB during the period in which it seeks the premiums, and that it failed to collect the premiums during that period.  Once the Postal Service meets this initial burden, a rebuttable presumption applies that it complied with its own regulations and federal law regarding payment of FEHB premiums during the coverage period.  See, e.g., Saunders, AO 14-307.
Although Mr. Prado argues that he paid his FEHB premiums, the Postal Service’s payroll records from pay periods 2 and 3 show that no such deductions were made (Compare Resp. Exh. 2, with Resp. Exh. 3).  Additionally, Mr. Prado argues that OWCP deducted his share of the FEHB premium for all of January 2016, not just January 10 and 11.  However, the evidence shows that OWCP deducted only a prorated amount for January 10 and 11 (Finding 2).  The Postal Service proved that Mr. Prado was enrolled in FEHB during pay periods 2 and 3 and that it did not deduct his share of the premiums in those pay periods (Findings 2, 3).
Mr. Prado does not challenge the rebuttable presumption that the Postal Service paid the FEHB premiums.  Rather, he asserts that the debt should be offset because (1) OWCP deducted more than it should have for his premiums in 2015 and 2016; (2) both the Postal Service and OWCP took deductions from his pay during pay periods 14 and 15 of 2015; (3) the amounts OWCP deducted from his pay in 2015 were greater than the normal Postal Service deductions; and (4) there were double FEDVIP deductions in 2016.  In summary, Mr. Prado argues that he overpaid OWCP and the Postal Service in 2015 and 2016, and therefore he does not owe a debt to the Postal Service.
Jurisdiction under the Debt Collection Act is limited to situations where the Postal Service attempts to recover a debt owed by an employee.  It does not cover demands by an employee for the recovery of debts owed by the Postal Service to the employee.  See Eric A. Van Dyke, DCA 12-2, 2012 WL 13034259 (April 26, 2012); Hough v. United States Postal Service, AO 17-30, -32, -33, 2017 WL 5516565 (P.S.D. June 29, 2017).  We may consider an employee’s affirmative monetary claim only where the claim is so closely related to the debt alleged by the Postal Service as to constitute a single debt dispute.  See, e.g., Ashley A. Nokes, DCA 14-149, 2014 WL 12767839 (July 16, 2014).  However, none of Mr. Prado’s four arguments against the Postal Service are significantly related to the Postal Service’s $376.98 debt claim.  Accordingly, they cannot be considered for the purpose of offset in this forum.
The Postal Service proved the existence of the FEHB premium debt, and that Mr. Prado is liable for it.  The parties agreed on a repayment schedule of $25 per pay period.

ORDER

The Petition is denied.  The Postal Service may collect $25 per pay period by involuntary administrative salary offset until the debt of $376.98 is satisfied.

Diane M. Mego
Administrative Judge