Docket No. AWG 23-290

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service and the Treasury Department are seeking to collect a debt from Stephanie Lynn by administrative wage garnishment. The debt is based on the cash value of Ms. Lynn’s negative annual leave balance when she separated from the Postal Service. The record establishes that Ms. Lynn had a negative annual leave balance. Ms. Lynn did not appear at the hearing, but her hearing request argued that the debt has been satisfied by offsets taken by the Treasury Department. As conceded by the Postal Service, that assertion is partially correct. But there remains a balance on the debt. The petition is therefore denied, and Ms. Lynn is responsible for the balance of the debt.  

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ms. Lynn worked for the Postal Service until she was issued a notice of removal in December 2013. Following a grievance proceeding upholding the removal, Ms. Lynn’s separation date was set as August 12, 2015. (Exh. 5). The Postal Service then processed Ms. Lynn’s final payroll journal for Pay Period 21 in 2015, which ended on October 2, 2015. As of Pay Period 21, Ms. Lynn had a negative annual leave balance of 58 hours (Tr. 20; Exh. 6 at 20). Based on her hourly salary when she used those annual leave hours, the Postal Service calculated the value of the hours as $1,205.12 (Tr. 21; Exh. 3, Exh. 6 at 20). The Postal Service then invoiced Ms. Lynn for that amount in October 2015 (Exh. 3).  
Ms. Lynn did not respond to the invoice, so the Postal Service forwarded the debt to the Treasury Department for further collection action. The Treasury Department, acting through a collection agency, issued Ms. Lynn a Notice of Intent to Initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment in June 2022. The collection agency sought to collect $1,590.76, which represented the original amount of the debt plus collection fees. (Exh. 2). In response, Ms. Lynn asked for a hearing to challenge the debt (Exh. 1). This petition followed, and a hearing was held in March 2024. 
Although Ms. Lynn participated in a pre-hearing conference and had been notified of the hearing date, she did not appear at the hearing. For judicial economy, I allowed the Postal Service to present its case, including the testimony of its witness. I did, however, leave the record open to allow Ms. Lynn a chance to explain her absence, and as appropriate, allow her to testify and cross-examine the witness. Ms. Lynn did not respond to repeated contacts from my office. I therefore closed the record on July 16, 2024, and notified the parties that I would issue a written decision based on the record.
In response to that order—and after the decision was substantially complete—Ms. Lynn contacted my office saying that she did want a chance to testify. That request is denied. Ms. Lynn did not offer any excuse for missing the hearing, and her excuse for not responding to my office after that is not sufficient to justify re-opening the hearing at this late date. Further, as discussed below, I have considered the arguments raised by Ms. Lynn in her previous filings.

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. Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 512.721. To recover the monetary value of the annual leave, the Postal Service must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it made the salary overpayments, the amount of the overpayments, and that the employee was not entitled to them. 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).  
In the context of a debt based on an annual leave balance, the Postal Service can prove that it made the salary overpayment by showing the employee’s annual leave balance when they separated from the Postal Service. The amount of the debt is generally proved by showing the employee’s hourly salary rate for the overdrawn annual leave hours. The last element of proof—that the employee was not entitled to the overpayment—is normally presumed based on the applicable Postal Service regulation for unearned leave. ELM § 512.721.  
Here, the Postal Service has met that burden by a preponderance of the evidence. The payroll journals support a finding that Ms. Lynn had a negative annual leave balance of 58 hours when she separated from the Postal Service. The testimony of the Postal Service’s witness then proved that the amount of the debt was based on Ms. Lynn’s hourly salary rate for the hours comprising the debt. Finally, there is no reason to question the applicability of ELM § 512.721 to the facts of this case.  
In her hearing request, Ms. Lynn argued that the debt had been satisfied by offsets previously taken by the Treasury Department. That assertion is partially correct. As conceded by the Postal Service at the hearing (Tr. 26), the Treasury Department collected $494.80 in August 2020 for the annual leave debt. The Postal Service’s records show, however, that Ms. Lynn also had a number of delinquent invoices unrelated to the annual leave debt at issue in this case (Exh. 14). Therefore, any amount Treasury collected to satisfy these invoices does not further reduce the balance due on Invoice No. 702674663.  

ORDER

The petition is denied. After crediting Ms. Lynn with the $494.80 previously collected, the Postal Service and the Treasury Department may collect the balance of the debt by administrative wage garnishment.