P.S. Docket No. AWG 23-226

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service is seeking to collect a debt from Ms. Rivera based on a salary advance. Because the evidence establishes that Ms. Rivera received both her regular salary and a salary advance for the same hours worked in Pay Period 25 of 2021, the debt is valid. As addressed below, I decline to rule on Ms. Rivera’s argument that she is entitled to additional money for other hours worked during that pay period. Accordingly, the petition is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

Between November 20 and December 3, 2021, Ms. Rivera should have received a net salary of $420.44 in Pay Period 25. That amount was based on 16 hours of Code 52 work hours (plus night differential on 6 of those hours) and 8 hours of Code 58 holiday leave.¹ (Resp. Exh. 5 at 14). Ms. Rivera normally received her salary through a check rather than direct deposit, but in Pay Period 25 her check was delayed (Tr. 28, 70). She therefore asked for, and received, a $440 money order as a salary advance (Tr. 70; 76–77).² The Postal Service did not collect that amount by payroll deduction in a later paycheck, and Ms. Rivera did not immediately repay the salary advance (Tr. 71).
When the debt was not repaid, the Postal Service sent Ms. Rivera an invoice on January 19, 2022, for $440 (Resp. Exh. 3). Because Ms. Rivera did not respond to or pay the invoice, the debt was referred to the Treasury Department for further collection action. The Treasury Department then issued a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment Proceedings in July 2022 (Resp. Exh. 2). In response, Ms. Rivera asked for a hearing, asserting that she did not owe the debt (Resp. Exh. 1). The matter was later transferred to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings, and a hearing was held in November 2023.
Separately, the Treasury Department offset the debt from Ms. Rivera’s tax return (Tr. 71; see also Postal Service status report dated December 4, 2023).³   

DECISION

The Postal Service is authorized to give an employee a salary advance⁴ in certain circumstances, including situations where the employee did not receive a salary check or received a check that was substantially less than the amount due. Handbook F-101, Field Accounting Procedures, § 23-3.1.1. To recover a debt based on a salary advance, the Postal Service must prove that it paid a salary advance, the amount of the advance, and that the employee eventually received their expected salary, thereby resulting in a double payment for the relevant hours worked. Abdullah v. United States Postal Service, DCA 15-19, 2015 WL 13647643 (May 11, 2015).
Here, Ms. Rivera does not dispute that she received her regular salary check for Pay Period 25 in 2021—although the check was delayed. She also does not dispute that because her regular check was delayed, she received a $440 salary advance. And there is no dispute that Ms. Rivera did not repay the $440 salary advance—at least until the Treasury Department collected that amount by offsetting her tax return. Thus, the Postal Service has met its initial burden of proof.
Yet Ms. Rivera does not believe she is responsible for the debt. She contends that she was not paid for additional hours she worked in Pay Period 25 of 2021. She believes that payment for those hours more than offset the debt.
That contention is supported by the testimony of the Postal Service’s witness (Tr. 38–44; 59–61) and an AdjustPay Transaction Detail Report (Resp. Exh. 6). That evidence suggests that Ms. Rivera’s time and attendance records were modified in late December 2022 to reflect the fact that she worked more hours than she had been paid for, but that she may not have received her salary for those hours.⁵
Those facts might entitle Ms. Rivera to relief from the debt, but in this case another factor undercuts that result. As discussed during the hearing, Ms. Rivera has a case pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Pet. Exh. 8). During the hearing, I asked the parties to address whether the money that Ms. Rivera might be owed for Pay Period 25 will be addressed in that proceeding. In response, the Postal Service stated this money is at issue in the EEOC proceeding and would be decided by that forum (Status Report dated December 4, 2024). In a post-hearing telephone conference, I therefore told the parties that I would not address that issue in this decision (Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference dated January 5, 2024).  

ORDER

The petition is denied. Ms. Rivera is responsible for the debt underlying this petition. The debt, however, has already been collected by the Treasury Department through a tax offset. Therefore, neither the Postal Service nor the Treasury Department may take any further collection action.