P.S. Docket No. AWG 21-319

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service and the Treasury Department are seeking to collect $363.11 from Rosemary Amerson by administrative wage garnishment. That amount represents the remaining balance on an original debt assessment of $2,158.93. The debt is based on a negative annual leave balance when Ms. Amerson separated from the Postal Service in February 2003.
As explained below, the Postal Service has proved the existence and amount of both the debt and the remaining balance. Ms. Amerson has not been able to prove that those amounts are incorrect or that she does not otherwise owe the debt. The petition is therefore denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Amerson worked for the Postal Service until February 13, 2003 (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 35). As of Pay Period 5 in 2003 when her employment ended, Ms. Amerson had a negative annual leave balance of 157.85 hours (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 28–30). Based on Ms. Amerson’s then-current hourly salary of $21.174, the annual leave had a value of $3,342.32 (Resp. Exh. 1; Tr. 30–32).
2. Thereafter, the Postal Service sent Ms. Amerson an invoice on February 26, 2003, notifying her that the Postal Service was seeking to collect $2,158.93¹ based on the negative annual leave balance. Attached to the invoice was a Notice of Debt Determination, which among other things, notified Ms. Amerson of her right to challenge the debt under the provisions of 39 C.F.R. Part 966.² (Pet. Exh. 1).
3. Ms. Amerson did not respond to the Postal Service or file a petition with the Judicial Office challenging the debt. The Postal Service then sent Ms. Amerson three letters between November 2003 and January 2004 notifying her that it intended to refer the debt to the Treasury Department for collection. Those letters specifically notified Ms. Amerson that the Treasury Department might add “fees and charges” to the principle amount of the debt. (Resp. Exhs. 5–6; Tr. 36–48).
4. When Ms. Amerson had still not repaid the debt, the Postal Service referred the debt to the Treasury Department for collection in March 2004 (Resp. Exh. 6; Tr. 43–44). After it received that referral, the Treasury Department collected $499.00³ from Ms. Amerson in August 2007 and $1,659.93 in January 2008. (Resp. Exh. 2 at 12–13). The January 2008 payment included $1,296.82 in principle and $363.11 for a collection fee (Resp. Exh. 2 at 12; Tr. 52–55). After those payments, the remaining balance of the debt was, coincidentally, $363.11, the same amount as the collection fee.
5. Nothing further happened until March 1, 2021, when the Treasury Department sent Ms. Amerson a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings. The Notice stated the Treasury Department’s intent to collect a debt of $479.31. (Pet. Exh. 2). Ms. Amerson then filed a petition challenging the debt with the Judicial Office, and these proceedings followed. In this proceeding, the Postal Service is seeking to collect only $363.11, not the $479.31 asked for by the Notice. Here again, neither the Postal Service’s witness nor its representative could explain why the Postal Service is seeking to collect the lesser amount (Tr. 62–64).

DECISION

A former employee's negative annual leave balance equates to a salary overpayment, entitling the Postal Service to recover the monetary value of the paid but unearned annual leave under the Debt Collection Act. Reneau v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-211 (I.D. August 2, 2016); see also Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 512.721. To recover, the Postal Service must prove that it made the salary overpayments, the amount of the overpayments, and that the employee was not entitled to them. Chopra v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-157 (November 3, 2015). Here, the Postal Service has met that burden. The Postal Service’s payroll records establish both the amount and value of the annual leave. For her part, Ms. Amerson does not dispute either the fact that she had a negative annual leave balance or the value of that annual leave.
Ms. Amerson’s defense focused on a series of vague, unsupported allegations (Tr. 108–09). She first argued that in late 2002 or early 2003, her supervisor demanded that she provide medical documentation to support one day of sick leave. Ms. Amerson either could not or would not produce the requested documentation from her doctor. This situation apparently escalated to the point that either Ms. Amerson quit or was terminated by the Postal Service, effectively ending her employment in February 2003. Regardless of the genesis of that dispute, and regardless of which party may have been at fault for the separation, I have no authority to review the cause of the Ms. Amerson’s leaving the Postal Service. Any remedies she may have had for that dispute are not properly before me for review.
Ms. Amerson also referenced a dispute she had with the Postal Service over certain retirement payments she did not receive until several years after she left her employment. Here again, my review is limited to the validity of this debt.  

ORDER

The petition is denied. The Postal Service and the Treasury Department may collect $363.11 by administrative wage garnishment.