P.S. Docket No. DCA 20-56


February 4, 2021

P.S. Docket No. DCA 20-56

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

JOHN P. LOPEZ v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Albert Lum
Labor Relations Admin Group LLC

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Kent Campbell
Labor Relations Specialist

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

This matter involves a claim of debt that Respondent seeks as repayment of what it contends was overpayment of sick leave that Petitioner was not entitled to receive, as well as some tax payments related to the alleged overpayment. The parties submitted the case for decision based on the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. At all relevant times, Petitioner John Lopez was an employee of Respondent.
  2. Between July 2019, and November 2019, Mr. Lopez submitted multiple requests to use a combination of sick and annual leave. All the requests for sick leave stated “surgical procedure” in the remarks section. (Resp. Exh. 4).
  3. On several occasions prior to November 1, 2019, Manager, Post Office Operations (MPOO), Brandon Roundy made multiple attempts to reach Mr. Lopez. Once he finally reached Mr. Lopez, Mr. Roundy requested medical documentation to support Mr. Lopez’s absences. (Resp. Exh. 6).
  4. On November 1, 2019, Mr. Roundy discovered that Mr. Lopez had been working at an insurance company, American Income Life, while he was on sick leave (Resp. Exh. 5).
  5. An investigation was started into Mr. Lopez’s absences from work (Resp. Exh. 8).
  6. On November 8, 2019, Mr. Lopez was informed his sick leave would be converted to annual and leave without pay (LWOP) due to his failure to provide medical documentation in accordance with Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 513.365 (Resp. Exh. 7).
  7. During the first investigative interview on November 11, 2019, Mr. Lopez admitted he was not sick or incapacitated from September 3, 2019, through September 27, 2019 (Id. at 19).
  8. Further investigation revealed that Mr. Lopez received his insurance license on or around July 9, 2019 (Id. at 5).
  9. On November 13, 2019, pay adjustments were made converting Mr. Lopez's 256 hours of sick leave and 16 hours of holiday pay to LWOP based on his then current salary and crediting him back the sick leave (Resp. Exhs. 9, 10).
  10. On December 3, 2019, the Postal Service sent Mr. Lopez a letter of debt determination in the amount of $7,006.48 for reimbursement of the sick leave along with two attachments including invoice 703048166 and the options available to Mr. Lopez for appeal (Resp. Exh. 11).
  11. Mr. Lopez requested reconsideration of the debt, which was denied on January 23, 2020 (Pet. Exh. 4; Resp. Exh. 12).
  12. On January 24, 2020, the Postal Service sent a letter of debt determination for invoice 703062959 in the amount of $2,924.75 for the taxes on the previously unpaid payroll debt (Resp. Exhs. 13, 14).
  13. On February 18, 2020, two PS Form 3239s were submitted to the Accounting Services Center to begin involuntary debt collection of the money owed by Mr. Lopez (Resp. Exh. 15).
  14. The Postal Service failed to issue a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in advance of its collection (Resp. Exh. 3).

DECISION

In a Debt Collection Act (DCA) case, the agency carries the burden of establishing that a debt exists. Cross v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-78, 2015 WL 13647652 (September 14, 2015); Bruch v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-362, 2015 WL 13647636 (June 17, 2015).  The obligation to meet that burden in a salary overpayment case requires the agency to produce sufficient evidence that Petitioner owes the debt, and that the amount the agency seeks to collect is an accurate calculation of the debt alleged.  Price v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-212, 2016 WL 10572233 (I.D. May 17, 2016).
The circumstances of this debt are somewhat unusual. Respondent contended that Petitioner falsely sought to use sick leave so that he could pursue a professional opportunity outside of the United States Postal Service. The preponderance of the evidence supports this contention. Mr. Lopez’s conduct was in violation of ELM § 513.312.1 As a result, the conversion of his sick leave to LWOP for the remainder of his leave was proper. The Postal Service has met its burden that the debt is accurate, and that Petitioner is liable for the debt.
In his defense, Petitioner argues that the Postal Service violated the regulatory procedures to collect the debt, including a failure to issue a proper Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset. Petitioner is correct. However, as we have found on numerous occasions, that error alone does not invalidate the debt. See, e.g., Dorinda Tolson, AO 11-10, 2010 WL 11570352 (I.D. July 15, 2010)(“The traditional remedy for violation of procedural due process is to award to Petitioner the right to proper process.”).2 As Mr. Lopez was given the procedural due process contemplated by the DCA in this proceeding, his request that the debt be invalidated is not a remedy available to him under the DCA or the Federal Claims Collection Standards for the Postal Service’s procedural violation. 5 U.S.C. § 5514; 31 C.F.R. § 901.3.
Next Mr. Lopez argues that the Postal Service failed to provide certain information pertaining to the debt when requested. Indeed, the documentation was not provided until this case was initiated. While this may be accurate, it is not a basis to invalidate the debt. See, e.g., Kathryn L. Schrack, DCA 11-52, 11-53, 11-54, 2011 WL 13238598 (August 1, 2011). The due process owed an employee is provided through this DCA proceeding, and the Postal Service, while apparently non-responsive in earlier unrelated matters, did provide the requested documentation in this case. Petitioner was ably represented during the proceeding, and thus no prejudice existed in the delay.
Finally, Petitioner argues that the sick leave request was approved by his supervisor, and his supervisor did not request medical documentation until well after the sick leave was approved. Accordingly, Petitioner asks that the Postal Service be barred from converting his sick leave to LWOP notwithstanding his misconduct in requesting the sick leave in the first place. Petitioner cites no precedent to support this position. The delay in the request for documentation is tied to the investigation into Petitioner’s use of sick leave to work for another entity. As Petitioner was engaged in other employment while being paid for sick leave by the Postal Service, the Postal Service was well within its rights to convert his improperly used sick leave to LWOP in the absence of medical documentation to support its use. See ELM § 513.365 (“If acceptable substantiation of incapacitation is not furnished, the absence may be charged to annual leave, LWOP, or AWOL.”).
As the Postal Service met its burden on the debt, it is entitled to judgment in its favor.

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED. The Postal Service may collect the outstanding balance of the debt by administrative salary offset.

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge

 

1 “An employee who is in sick leave status may not engage in any gainful employment unless prior approval has been granted by appropriate authority . . . . ” ELM § 513.312.

2 It appears that the Postal Service initiated offset improperly against Petitioner. It was ordered to cease. Order to File Answer and Cease Collection (April 10, 2020). Petitioner was not reimbursed for the collected amount. The net balance due on this debt is not part of the record.