Docket No. AWG 23-319

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service erroneously paid Kerre Allen for 32 hours of leave past her last day in pay status. The Treasury Department, on behalf of the Postal Service, now seeks to collect the overpayment, plus associated collection fees, by administrative wage garnishment.
For the reasons discussed below, the Postal Service met its burden of proof, and Ms. Allen offered no valid defenses. Thus, I find that Ms. Allen is liable for the debt, and the Treasury Department may collect it by administrative wage garnishment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. About three months after joining the Postal Service, Ms. Allen resigned. As she requested, the resignation was effective on November 9, 2021, which was day four of pay period 24 of 2021, making that her last day in pay status (Resp. Exh. 3–4; Tr. 15–16, 42, 58–59, 106).¹
2. The Postal Service erroneously paid Ms. Allen 16 hours for November 11 and 25, 2021, which were Federal holidays that occurred on day six of pay periods 24 and 25, respectively (Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. 18–20, 109).
3. The Postal Service also erroneously paid Ms. Allen sick leave for 16 hours in week two of pay period 24 and in pay period 25 (Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. 19–20, 38–39, 109).
4. In February 2022, the Postal Service issued to Ms. Allen a Notice of Debt Determination and Invoice No. 703278629, seeking $523.86 for the 16 hours of holiday leave and 16 hours of sick leave that it mistakenly paid Ms. Allen after her last day in pay status (Resp. Exh. 2).
5. Ms. Allen’s annual base salary at the time of her separation was $37,191. That salary divided by 2080 (the number of hours used by the Postal Service to represent a work-year) equated to an hourly salary of $17.8803, which multiplied by 32 hours equaled $572.17. (Resp. Exhs. 2, 4; Employee and Labor Relations Manual § 432.2).
6. After receiving the invoice, Ms. Allen first contacted a union representative who had advised her about her final paycheck. Based on a previous conversation with the union representative, Ms. Allen thought then that the funds were owed to her. (Tr. 77, 104–05, 108– 10).
7. Ms. Allen then contacted the Postal Service Accounting Service Center (ASC). ASC advised her to have her supervisor or manager change her last day in pay status. She and the union representative tried to do so, but the supervisor did not make the change and the manager did not respond. (Pet. Exhs. 1–2, 4, 6; Tr. 82–87, 104–05).
8. The union representative lacked authority to change her last day in pay status or authorize any payments to her (Tr. 16–17, 78–79).
9. The Postal Service eventually referred the debt to the Treasury Department for collection action. In October 2022, 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 Ms. Allen’s wages to collect $681.02, which comprised the original amount of the debt plus collection fees. (Resp. Exh. 1).
10. In response to the AWG notice, Ms. Allen asked for a hearing on the existence of the debt and claimed ineligibility for garnishment based on her last 12 months of employment history (Pet. Exh. 3). The Treasury Department then referred the matter to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings on the existence of the debt (Notice of Docketing, July 11, 2023).
11. Based on Ms. Allen’s election, I held a hearing by video-conference in November 2023 (Order, Sept. 27, 2023).

DECISION

The Postal Service overpaid Ms. Allen by paying her for 16 hours of holiday leave and 16 hours of sick leave past her last day in pay status. To recover a salary overpayment, the Postal Service bears 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); Price v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-212, 2016 WL 10572233, at *1 (I.D. May 17, 2016).
An employee may not keep money paid for work hours, including leave, past the employee’s last day in pay status. See Carrier v. United States Postal Service, AWG 21-338, 2022 WL 622382, at *1 (Jan. 28, 2022); Glen A. Patterson, AO 05-62, 2005 WL 8152920, at *3 (I.D. July 26, 2005). The Postal Service proved through exhibits and witness testimony that it paid Ms. Allen the hours in question past her last day in pay status. Based on a PS Form 50 with Ms. Allen’s salary, the Postal Service also proved that the monetary value of the leave was at least the amount of the invoice.²
Moreover, we have consistently held that administrative error does not relieve an employee of a valid debt even if the employee is not at fault. Crowder v. United States Postal Service, AWG 22-471, 2023 WL 6847474, at *2 (Aug. 10, 2023); Riemer v. United States Postal Service, AO 15-286, 2016 WL 10572236, at *1 (I.D. April 15, 2016). A salary overpayment typically results from a mistake or administrative error. See, e.g., Morey v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-292, 2015 WL 13647631, at *3 (June 9, 2015).
Ms. Allen did not dispute that she was paid for leave hours past her resignation date. However, she argued that she should be able to keep the funds because she notified her supervisor, her manager, and the union representative of the issue, and the payment was not caused by a clerical error or an accident. (Tr. 82–87, 109). These arguments, however, do not entitle her to keep the funds.
An employee who erroneously receives a salary overpayment from the Postal Service does not acquire any rights to that money, and it must be repaid—even when Postal Service management was notified of the overpayment. John F. Breslin, DCA 13-357, 2014 WL 12767838, at *2 (April 28, 2014). In fact, in Breslin, the overpayment had to be repaid even when management mistakenly told the employee that he was entitled to the money. Id. Here, Ms. Allen did not even claim that Postal Service management told her that she was entitled. Instead, she claimed that she notified management, but they were unresponsive. That notification alone does not entitle her to keep the funds. It also does not matter that she notified the union representative.
As for Ms. Allen’s argument that the debt was not caused by clerical error or accident, she offered no evidence that the Postal Service intentionally paid her for the leave.
Ms. Allen instead pointed out other perceived errors. She argued that the union representative erred in telling her that the money was owed to her, and her supervisor and manager erred in not following up when she asked for help. No matter what the union representative said, he lacked authority to grant her the overpayment and did not claim to have any such authority. Also, no matter the supervisor’s and manager’s inactions, Ms. Allen was paid for leave hours past her last day in pay status.
The issue here is a narrow one: Was the petitioner overpaid by the alleged hours? Bell v. United States Postal Service, AO 19-361, 2020 WL 5255635, at *2 (Aug. 24, 2020). The Postal Service proved that she was.
In sum, the Postal Service met its burden of proof, and Ms. Allen offered no valid defenses.

ORDER

The petition is denied. The Treasury Department may collect the debt by administrative wage garnishment.
In her initial hearing request, Ms. Allen asserted that administrative wage garnishment will cause her financial hardship. The matter is therefore remanded to the Treasury Department for further review on that question.³