P.S. Docket No. DCA 18-283


June 27, 2019

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

ORLANDO KEVIN CHUNEY v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. DCA 18-283

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Orlando Chuney, pro se

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Patricia Schaefer
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Respondent, United States Postal Service, sought to collect from Petitioner, Orlando Chuney, a claim of debt in the amount of $930 for a shortage in the unit reserve.  Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing on October 5, 2018.  I ordered both parties to supplement the record with appropriate affidavits and supporting documentation not later than November 28, 2018.  Neither party complied with my Order.  I again ordered the parties to file appropriate affidavits and supporting documentation not later than March 15, 2019.  Only the Postal Service responded to the Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Petitioner was a supervisor at the Lansing Delta Carrier Annex located at 6101 W. Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan, and the detached unit, the Delta Postal Store, located at 5208 W. Saginaw Hwy., Lansing, Michigan.  He served as unit reserve custodian for both properties at all relevant times.  (Declaration of Kimberly Dontje at ¶¶2-3)(March 15, 2019)(Dontje Affidavit).
  2. On May 19, 2018, Petitioner and the Acting Station Manager conducted a proper audit of the unit reserve stock at the Delta Postal Store, which revealed a shortage of $930 (Dontje Affidavit at ¶8; Resp. Exh. A at 3).
  3. The Cash/Stamp Credit Count Report (PS Form 3294) created immediately before the audit reveals that 100 Bio Life stamps should have been in the unit reserve; however, the physical count for these stamps was zero (Dontje Affidavit at ¶11; Resp. Exh. B at 4).
  4. In an email dated July 23, 2018, Mr. Chuney stated that the stamps “valued at $1,000 were accidentally thrown out with the box they came in” (Petition at 15).
  5. The Postal Service issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on September 20, 2018 (Petition at 1). 
  6. The Petition was timely filed.

DECISION

Under the Debt Collection Act, the initial burden lies with Respondent to establish that an actual loss exists in an account for which the employee is accountable.  See Ingalls v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-224, 2016 WL 10572241 (May 25, 2016).  Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction or act of negligence by Petitioner.  It is sufficient that Respondent show that after a properly conducted inventory or audit a stock shortage exists in an account for which Petitioner is accountable.  Christina A. Lamb, DCA 09-203, 2009 WL 10690559 (October 30, 2009).  On the record before me, I conclude that Respondent has met its initial burden that a shortage of $930 existed in an account for which Petitioner is accountable.  Accordingly, the burden shifts to Petitioner to establish why he should not be held accountable for the shortage.
Petitioner did not submit any additional materials beyond those contained in his Petition.  In an earlier telephone conference, Petitioner admitted that he did not dispute the amount of the debt sought.  See Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference (November 14, 2018).  Petitioner’s sole defense is that the Postal Service did not suffer an actual loss, because he threw the stamps out.  Under his theory, since they were thrown away, the stamps were not used.  Petitioner concludes that if they were not used, the Postal Service suffered no actual loss. 
This argument as to what constitutes an actual loss to the Postal Service is not a novel one.  Other employees have sought to avoid liability in similar circumstances under similar theories.  See, e.g., Steward v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-59, 2017 WL 5516581 (March 29, 2017)(discussion of several cases challenging “actual loss” to the Postal Service).  However, there is no dispute here as to the value of the missing stamps from the unit reserve.  The undisputed result of the audit proved the actual loss.  Conjecture as to where the missing stamps may have gone after Petitioner threw them away, or speculation that no one used the discarded stamps for postage, does not constitute evidence to disprove an actual loss to the Postal Service.  Hankins v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-241, 2017 WL 5516576 (September 6, 2017)(speculative theories are not a defense to a shortage in the unit reserve).  The Postal Service having met its burden of proof is entitled to judgment in its favor.

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED.  The Postal Service may collect the debt of $930 from Petitioner by administrative salary offset.

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge