P.S. Docket No. DCA 23-276

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

This matter involves a claim of debt for $7,212 that Respondent seeks to collect based on an alleged shortage in Petitioner’s unit reserve account. A hearing was held with both parties present by video-teleconferencing. The following facts are based on the record.    

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all relevant times, Petitioner Karla Arguello worked for the Postal Service (Tr. 10, 14, 59). 
2. Ms. Arguello was unit reserve custodian on the dates discussed herein (Tr. 10). 
3. On November 9, 2022, Ms. Arguello prepared a shipment of stamps for return to Stamp Fulfillment Services (SFS) (Tr. 63-75; Resp. Exh. 2). 
4. In accordance with Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, Ms. Arguello placed the stamps and associated paperwork into a box with the window clerk as a witness (Tr. 63-64).  
5. The box contained $7,212 in stamps (Tr. 9). 
6. After closing the box with the PS Form 17 inside, Ms. Arguello placed a computer-generated address label and a tracking number onto the closed box, and the window clerk placed the box into the crate used for outgoing mail (Tr. 64-78).  
7. Neither the window clerk nor Ms. Arguello scanned the package (Tr. 76-79, 85). 
8. The crate in which the package was placed is used for both internal and customer mail (Tr. 78). 
9. According to the standard procedure at this facility, after mail is placed in the crate, the crate is eventually loaded onto a truck for further delivery (Id.). 
10. The package that Ms. Arguello placed into the crate never arrived at SFS (Tr. 17-18; Resp. Exh. 2). 
11. There is no record of a scan of the package at any stage after the creation of the label. 

DECISION

This case rests on a single issue: whether the package entered the mailstream. Both parties agree that if the package entered the mailstream, Ms. Arguello is not accountable for its loss because it would no longer be under her control as the unit reserve custodian. The Postal Service argues that because the package was never scanned, it cannot be found to have definitively entered the mailstream, or that it ever even left the postal facility where Ms. Arguello worked. Because there is no independent or corroborating evidence it was ever placed in the mailstream, the Postal Service argues Ms. Arguello remains financially liable for its contents. Ms. Arguello argues that once she placed the package into the outgoing mail crate it was no longer her responsibility as she cannot control what happens to a package after placement in the outgoing mail.  
The unit reserve stock custodian is accountable for the value of all items in the unit reserve stock, is responsible for managing the stamp stock inventory, and must accurately report unit reserve stock activities. Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, § 13-2.5. To hold a unit reserve custodian accountable under this provision, the Postal Service bears the initial burden of showing that: (1) the employee was the accountable custodian of the unit reserve account; and (2) there was a shortage representing an actual loss to the Postal Service in that account. Jhan Harris, 2011 WL 13238593, DCA 11-39 (July 29, 2011). 
An actual loss is normally proved by a stamp stock count that shows a shortage relative to a previously established balance. Patricia Todd, 2002 WL 35644070, DCA 02-82 (May 17, 2002). And proof of a properly conducted audit is sufficient to prove an actual loss. Christina Lamb, 2009 WL 10690559, DCA 09-203 (October 30, 2009). Here, the parties do not dispute that the box with the stamps is missing. See Findings of Fact ¶10. That fact is sufficient, even in the absence of an audit of the unit reserve, to meet the Postal Service’s burden that an actual loss occurred. Chorico v United States Postal Service, 2020 WL 2198023, DCA 18-600, at *3, note 1 (April 28, 2020). Further, as Ms. Arguello was unit reserve custodian at that time, the loss is also attributable to an account for which she is accountable. Accordingly, the Postal Service met its initial burden in this case. Because the Postal Service has met its initial burden, Ms. Arguello must come forward with evidence sufficient to alleviate or offset the debt. D'Lucas v. United States Postal Service, 2015 WL 13647638, DCA 15-129 (September 28, 2015).  
In cases in which the unit reserve custodian is required to send stamps to the SFS, there is a point in time when the unit reserve custodian is no longer liable for the stamp shipment. Chorico, 2020 WL 2198023 at *3. The determination of when that point in time attaches is fact specific. What might appear in one case as the release of liability may differ in another. In this case, the critical time in the process was when the package was placed into the mailstream. Complicating the facts of this case is the unfortunate fact that the package was never independently scanned. However, I take notice that many packages are never scanned, so, at least in this case, a missing scan is not evidence of anything other than the fact that the package cannot be located. Tr. 90. It is not dispositive here.
The unit reserve custodian’s primary responsibility in the transfer of stamps to the SFS is to ensure that the custodian and a witness properly fill out the PS Form 17, place two copies into the box, and then properly seal the box with the appropriate paperwork and mailing label affixed to the exterior. Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures § 11-6.1.3.¹  Lastly, of course, that box must be sent for delivery to the SFS.  
In this postal facility, all outgoing mail, whether internal or from a customer, is placed in an outgoing mail crate. Tr. 75­–78. The crate is located through an open window but inside the facility. The standard procedure for all outgoing mail, including packages, is to drop them into this crate through the window. When the crate is full, it is brought to the outgoing mail truck for eventual delivery. Other personnel are then responsible for seeing that the mail in the crate is properly loaded onto the outgoing mail truck. Tr. 78. The unit reserve custodian is not responsible for loading the mail onto the outgoing mail truck. 
So, for the purposes of this case, I find that when a unit reserve custodian properly prepares an outgoing package of stamps for shipment to the SFS, the placement of the package into the outgoing mail crate is sufficient for the package to be considered to have been placed into the mailstream. Whether it might be better practice for the custodian to scan the package before placing it into the outgoing mail crate is not for me to decide. Rather, it is sufficient to relieve Ms. Arguello of personal financial liability if she followed all proper procedures for the packing and sealing of the package and followed standard protocols in the facility to ensure its mailing.  
Before concluding, I note that the Postal Service proved that Ms. Arguello failed to follow all proper procedures in reporting the loss and filing necessary paperwork. However, this conduct did not contribute to the loss of the package or the financial loss to the Postal Service. As we have long held, poor job performance is not a basis to establish personal financial liability under the Debt Collection Act. Bales v. United States Postal Service, 2016 WL 10572247, DCA 16-64 (September 9, 2016); William D. Vogel, 2000 WL 36731128, DCA 99-396 (August 3, 2000); Gertrude S. Campbell, 1999 WL 35796426, DCA 99-70 (June 3, 1999). Ms. Arguello’s failure to follow procedures following the loss did not cause the loss. Thus, she cannot be held personally financially liable under that theory of recovery. 
While the Postal Service did meet its burden in this case, the facts support Ms. Arguello’s argument that her financial responsibility for the package terminated when it was placed into the mailstream. She is entitled to judgment in her favor. 

ORDER

The Petition is GRANTED. The Postal Service may not collect the debt by administrative salary offset.