March 8, 2018

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

GHITTI KERDKLAI v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 16-211

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Ghitti Kerdklai

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Deborah K. Blanck Lovelace
Manager, Labor Relations

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Ghitti Kerdklai, challenges a $2,558.45 debt assessment against him by Respondent, United States Postal Service, for overpayments related to hotel, per diem, and travel expenses.  The Postal Service has proved that Mr. Kerdklai is accountable for the hotel and per diem expenses while on annual leave and may collect $2,313.50.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 13, 2014, Mr. Kerdklai was detailed as a Supervisor, Customer Service in the Bakken, North Dakota area, specifically Bismarck, North Dakota (Resp. Exh. 9).  On April 25, 2015, his detail was extended an additional 120 days to August 21, 2015.  Mr. Kerdklai’s detail was not extended past that date.  (Tr. 37-38).
2. Because of the number of employees detailed to the Bakken area to handle a labor shortage, Operations Program Support managed the detail assignments, including arranging housing and approving leave, rather than the local supervisors (Tr.  27-29, 33-36).  Mr. Kerdklai knew that the Operations Program Support office managed his detail and was responsible for extending his detail in April 2015 (Tr. 41).
3. While on detail, Mr. Kerdklai was provided housing at a hotel and was entitled to per diem at the rate of $46 per day (Tr. 34-35, 42).
4. At the conclusion of his detail, Mr. Kedklai went on an overseas trip.  He was on annual leave for 15 days between September 7, 2015 and September 21, 2015.  He received $678.50 per diem during that time (Resp. Exh. 7; Tr. 42).
5. Mr. Kerdklai did not check out of the hotel before leaving on his trip.  The cost of the hotel room for the 15 days he was on annual leave was $1,635 (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 42).
6. Mr. Kerdklai was reimbursed $244.95 for mileage home at the end of his detail (Tr. 42).
7. When the Postal Service became aware that Mr. Kerdklai was still registered in the hotel after the conclusion of his detail and during his annual leave, it tried to check him out in his absence, but it was unable to do so (Tr. 40-41).
8. On June 16, 2016, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets seeking $2,558.45 for repayment of the costs of the hotel ($1,635) and per diem ($678.50) while Mr. Kerdklai was on annual leave, and the home travel reimbursement ($244.95) (Resp. Exh. 4 at 10).  Mr. Kerdklai filed a timely Petition.

DECISION

When the Postal Service seeks to recover an overpayment, it bears the initial burden to prove that (1) it made the overpayment, (2) it properly calculated the amount of the debt, and (3) the employee was not entitled to the overpayment.  See Skadsberg v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-198, 14-200, 2014 WL 12767841 (September 16, 2014).  If the Postal Service meets that burden, the burden shifts to the employee to prove either an excuse sufficient to relieve the debt or that the amount of the debt is inaccurate.  Caroline Harrington, DCA 08-333, 2009 WL 10690544 (May 13, 2009).
Payment of per diem for a detail is governed by Handbook F-15, Travel and Relocation, § 7.  Employees on detail in a location that is not their permanent duty stations are entitled to per diem for each day they are on detail except for when on annual leave for more than four hours on a work day or immediately prior to a nonworkday (Resp. Exh. 8 at 47-48, Handbook F-15, § 7-4.1.3).  Under this provision, Mr. Kerdklai was not entitled to the $678.50 per diem he received while he was on annual leave. 
Mr. Kerdklai argues that he is not accountable for the cost of the hotel room because he followed the proper chain of command when requesting annual leave and guidance on retaining the hotel room after the end date of his detail.  He testified that his direct supervisor, the Bismarck, North Dakota Postmaster, approved his annual leave and advised him he did not need to check out of the hotel room before he left because his detail would be extended.  While this was the normal chain of command for requesting approval for annual leave, Mr. Kerdklai knew it was not the proper chain of command on the Bakken detail.  The Bakken detail had special procedures in place for granting annual leave and for notifying the employee of any detail extensions.  Mr. Kerdklai was aware of those special procedures because he had worked with the office throughout his detail, including a previous extension of his detail (Finding 2).  Prior to leaving on vacation, he did not contact the Operations Program Support office to request annual leave or ask if his detail was extended.  He cannot circumvent the procedures by claiming he relied on an authorization from the postmaster regarding annual leave and retaining the hotel room.  Mr. Kerdklai was not entitled to the cost of the hotel room following the conclusion of his detail or while he was on annual leave.  He must reimburse the Postal Service $1,635 for the cost of the hotel.
The Postal Service has not shown that the $244.95 reimbursement for a final trip home at the end of Mr. Kerdklai’s detail was improper.  Although he did not go directly from his detail to his home in California, he did return to his permanent duty station after his annual leave.  The Postal Service has not shown that Mr. Kerdklai would not have been entitled to the reimbursement at that time, and I find no regulation otherwise limiting when that reimbursement can be claimed.
Mr. Kerdklai did not present any other evidence excusing him from the debt.

ORDER

The Petition is denied in part and granted in part. The Postal Service may collect $2,313.50 by involuntary administrative salary offsets.

Diane M. Mego
Administrative Judge