P.S. Docket No. AWG 22-33

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service, through the Treasury Department, seeks to collect a debt from Steven Gray based on overdrawn annual leave when he separated from the Postal Service. Mr. Gray raised several defenses, none of which alleviate or offset the debt. The petition is therefore denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Gray worked for the Postal Service at all times relevant to this decision until he separated on May 28, 2002 (Tr. 30–31; Resp. Exh. 3). 
2. At the beginning of 2001, Mr. Gray did not carryover any annual leave from the prior year (Tr. 20; Resp. Exh. 1 at 11). In leave year 2001, Mr. Gray used 152 hours of annual leave but only earned 76 hours of annual leave, resulting in a negative 76-hour balance (Tr. 28; Resp. Exh. 1 at 17). He earned only 76 hours of annual leave in 2001 because his last day in a pay status was June 29, 2001 (Tr. 33–34; Resp. Exh. 1 at 14).  
3. In December 2002, the Postal Service issued Mr. Gray an invoice and a Notice of Debt Determination (Notice)seeking to collect $1,305.78 based on the 76 hours of overdrawn annual leave (Pet. Exh. 2). The Notice was mailed to Mr. Gray’s then-current address of record in Glen Burnie, Maryland. 
4. The amount of the debt was calculated based on Mr. Gray’s hourly rate when the annual leave was used, which was not necessarily his hourly rate when he separated from the Postal Service (Tr. 29).  
5. When Mr. Gray did not respond to the invoice and Notice, the debt was referred to the Treasury Department for collection. In June 2021, the Treasury Department issued Mr. Gray a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings. The Treasury Department added potential collection fees to the original debt, bringing the total amount sought by administrative wage garnishment to $1,723.63.(Pet. Exh. 1). In response, Mr. Gray filed a hearing request, and the matter was referred to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings. 

DECISION

A retiring or separating 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. 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. Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 512.72; Amerson v. United States Postal Service, AWG 21-319, 2022 WL 622379 (February 1, 2022); Reneau v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-211, 2016 WL 10572230 (August 2, 2016). Here, the Postal Service has proved through documentary evidence and witness testimony that Mr. Gray had a negative annual leave balance when he separated from the Postal Service (Finding 2). 
In his defense, Mr. Gray first argued that he did not understand the Postal Service’s annual leave system—especially the fact that a negative annual leave balance would result in a debt to the Postal Service. Mr. Gray’s lack of knowledge, even if true, does not excuse or alleviate the debt. The Postal Service’s regulations provide that employees are indebted to the Postal Service for the value of overdrawn annual leave. ELM § 512.721. There is no basis to deviate from that stated rule just because Mr. Gray did not know about it.  
Next, Mr. Gray asserts—correctly—that he had a positive sick leave balance (37.3 hours, seeResp. Exh. 3 at 43) when he separated. He believes that balance should offset, at least in part, the debt. The Postal Service’s witness, however, explained that a separating employee’s sick leave balance has no cash value (Tr. 46–48). That testimony is supported by the Postal Service’s regulations governing sick leave. ELM § 513.81. Mr. Gray is thus not entitled to relief from the debt based on his sick leave balance.
Finally, Mr. Gray alleges that he never received the invoice and Noticein December 2002. He testified that by the time those documents were sent, he had moved to another address. He also testified that his address of record was on Vera Lane, not Winding Wood Road where the documents were sent. (Tr. 51–52). But during his testimony, Mr. Gray admitted that he briefly lived on Winding Wood Road (Tr. 51). I thus infer—despite Mr. Gray’s testimony to the contrary (Tr. 52)—that at some point he had given that address to the Postal Service as his address of record. 
By sending Mr. Gray the invoice and Noticeto his address of record, the Postal Service met its obligations under the applicable laws and regulations to start the collection process under the Debt Collection Act by providing written notice of the debt. ELM § 471.3; 31 U.S.C. § 3716(a)(1). Mr. Gray believes that Noticewas defective. But the Postal Service only needed to send the notice to Mr. Gray’s last known address on file to comply with the notice provisions of the applicable regulations. Martin v. United States Postal Service, AWG 21-289, 2022 WL 622381 (January 19, 2022); see also 31 C.F.R. § 901.2. His failure to receive the documents in December 2002 therefore does not excuse his responsibility for the debt or the fees added by the Treasury Department.

ORDER

The petition is denied. The Postal Service, through the Treasury Department, may collect the debt underlying this petition by administrative wage garnishment.