Docket No. AWG 22-351

FINAL DECISION

The Treasury Department, on behalf of the Postal Service, seeks to collect $5,367.27 from Mr. Baker by administrative wage garnishment. This debt is based on Mr. Baker’s alleged failure to meet a two-year commitment for relocation benefits and the Treasury Department’s collection fees.
For the reasons discussed below, the Postal Service has not met its burden of proof. Thus, the petition is granted. The Treasury Department may not collect the debt by administrative wage garnishment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On April 14, 2014, Mr. Baker transferred as a Postal Service employee from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Washington, DC (Resp. Exh. 4).¹
2. He separated from the Postal Service six and a half months later, on October 31, 2014 (Resp. Exhs. 4–5).
3. On November 6, 2014, the Postal Service issued to Mr. Baker a Notice of Debt Determination and Invoice No. 1477781, seeking, as a pro-rated amount, $7,392.75 for Mr. Baker’s alleged failure to meet a two-year commitment for relocation benefits. The notice stated the Postal Service’s intent to collect the claim by administrative offset and notified Mr. Baker of his rights to inspect and copy records relating to the debt, request a review of the determination of indebtedness, and enter into a repayment agreement. (Resp. Exhs. 1–2).
4. The Postal Service sent the notice and invoice to the Washington, DC, address listed on a PS Form 50, Notification of Personnel Action, reflecting Mr. Baker’s last day in pay status. That PS Form 50 was processed on October 24 and effective October 31, 2014. (Resp. Exhs. 1–2, 5).
5. Upon his separation, the Postal Service owed Mr. Baker two terminal leave checks, totaling $3,326.64. But it applied those checks to the debt, reducing the amount sought to $4,066.11 (Resp. Exh. 6).
6. In April 2015, the Postal Service referred the debt to the Treasury Department for collection, which assigned a case number of 1500103429A (Pet. Exh. 1; Resp. Exh. 6).
7. On September 13, 2021, the Treasury Department issued a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings (AWG notice). The AWG notice stated the Treasury Department’s intent to garnish Mr. Baker’s wages to collect $5,367.27 (the amount having increased because of collection fees). The AWG notice was sent to an address in Cheyenne, Wyoming. (Resp. Exh. 3).
8. In response to the AWG notice, on September 20, 2021, Mr. Baker asked for a hearing on the existence of the debt and claimed ineligibility for garnishment based on his last 12 months of employment history (Pet. Exh. 1).
9. The Treasury Department then referred the matter to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings. The parties elected to proceed with a decision based on my review of the written record. (Notice of Docketing, Sept. 1, 2022; Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference, May 3, 2023).

DECISION

To recover under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence and amount of the debt. 31 C.F.R. § 285.11(f)(8). The Postal Service seeks payment for relocation benefits based on an agreement it made with Mr. Baker. A relocation agreement should be in writing and the Postal Service should have records of any expenses paid to the employee or others on his behalf. Postal Service Handbook F-15-A, Relocation Policy—Nonbargaining (EAS) Employees (Apr. 2013) (regulation of the Postal Service based on 39 C.F.R. § 211.2(a)(3)).
The Postal Service did not provide its agreement with Mr. Baker. It also did not provide any evidence of Mr. Baker’s relocation expenses or explain how it calculated the amount of the debt, other than indicating that it was pro-rated. Without proof of the agreement’s terms or payments made to, or on behalf of, Mr. Baker, I cannot find that a debt exists or the amount of the debt. The Postal Service failed to meet its burden of proof.
Mr. Baker argued that his supervisor told him that the debt was waived. But having resolved this petition against the Postal Service, I need not address that argument.
Next, I turn to whether Mr. Baker is entitled to reimbursement of the terminal leave offsets. Generally, the Postal Service may initiate administrative offset to recover the debt of a former employee only after it gives him written notice of the type and amount of the debt, the intention to collect by administrative offset, and an explanation of the debtor’s rights. Those rights include opportunities to inspect and copy records relating to the debt, request a review of the determination of indebtedness, and enter into a written repayment agreement. 31 U.S.C. § 3716(a) (2014); 31 C.F.R. § 901.3(b)(4)(ii) (2000); Employee and Labor Relations Manual § 472.1 (Sept. 2014). Receipt is not required, provided the Postal Service sends the notice to the debtor’s address of record. D’Lucas v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-129, 2015 WL 13647639 (July 8, 2015).
Mr. Baker argued that he did not receive the Postal Service’s notice or accompanying invoice. Those documents were sent to Mr. Baker’s Washington, DC, address on November 6, 2014, based on the PS Form 50 indicating his last day in pay status. The Postal Service processed that form on October 24, effective October 31, 2014. I find, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the Postal Service sent proper notice to Mr. Baker using his then-address of record.
During a telephone conference, Mr. Baker claimed that he had given the Postal Service a forwarding address (Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference, Jan. 26, 2023). But he did not submit a declaration or affidavit attesting to that, and he provided no proof of what he did, much less that he properly requested a change to his address of record.
The notice stated, among other things, that Mr. Baker had to request a review of the debt within 30 days of receipt of the notice. He did not do so and has not alleged that good cause for his failure exists. See 39 C.F.R. § 966.12. While he timely filed a challenge to the AWG proceedings,² he is too late to challenge the offsets now.

ORDER

The petition is granted. The Treasury Department is prohibited from collecting the debt by administrative wage garnishment.