March 8, 2021

P.S. Docket No. DCA 20-73

In the Matter of the Debt Collection Act Petition

LAURA DAVIS v UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Jeremiah Groff
Postmaster Porterville Post Office

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Joseph Khamis
Labor Relations Specialist

DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On February 26, 2021, I issued a Final Decision under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Decision).  Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 7, 2021.  The Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed.  39 C.F.R. § 961.10(b).
I have reviewed Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.  Under our rules, the Motion for Reconsideration is entirely within the discretion of the Hearing Official.  Id.  We have held that a motion for reconsideration “will generally not be granted unless there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of newly discovered evidence, or the need to correct a clear error and to prevent manifest injustice.”  Theresa Fowler, DCA 12-184, 2012 WL 13034252 (December 27, 2012).
Petitioner is unhappy with the result, but fails to offer any new evidence to suggest that the Decision was wrong.  Rather, she reargues facts presented at trial that I have already considered in my Decision and have found by a preponderance of the evidence.  Likewise, Petitioner cites no clear error to correct in my Decision nor does she present any change of controlling law that would necessitate reconsideration. 
Ultimately, that Petitioner disagrees with my conclusions does not alter my findings or require reconsideration of the Decision.

ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge