P.S. Docket No. AWG 23-347

FINAL DECISION

The Treasury Department, on behalf of the Postal Service, seeks to collect $4,777.63 from Ms. Brunson by administrative wage garnishment. This amount is based on 120 hours of overdrawn annual leave and the Treasury Department’s collection fees.
For the reasons discussed below, the Postal Service met its burden of proof. Thus, I find that Ms. Brunson is liable for the debt, and the Treasury Department may collect it by administrative wage garnishment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Brunson was employed by the Postal Service for 21 years. Her last day in pay status was May 25, 2021. (Pet. Exh. 2 at 3; Tr. 21).¹
2. At the end of the 2020 leave year, Ms. Brunson had a negative annual leave balance of 23.70 hours (Resp. Exh. 4 at 42; Tr. 19–20).
3. At the beginning of the 2021 leave year, based on her tenure, the Postal Service advanced 208 hours of annual leave to Ms. Brunson (Resp. Exh. 4 at 42; Tr. 20).
4. During 2021, Ms. Brunson earned 88 hours of her advanced annual leave. She also earned 8 hours of annual leave because she worked on a federal holiday.² She used 192.30 hours of annual leave. (Resp. Exh. 4 at 31, 41; Tr. 20–25).
5. When she left the Postal Service, Ms. Brunson was overdrawn 120 hours of annual leave (Resp. Exh. 4 at 31; Tr. 21).
6. Her last 120 hours of annual leave were taken between late February and May 2021, which were during pay periods 6–12 (Resp. Exh. 4 at 31–38; Tr. 21–26, 32–35).
7. In April 2022, the Postal Service issued to Ms. Brunson a Notice of Debt Determination and Invoice No. 703303076 for $3,675.10 based on the 120 hours of overdrawn annual leave (Resp. Exhs. 2 at 23–24, 3 at 25–26).
8. The Postal Service used $64,216 to calculate the monetary value of her negative annual leave balance. That amount was Ms. Brunson’s annual salary during her last 120 hours of annual leave. $64,216 divided by 2080 (the number of hours used by the Postal Service to represent a work-year) equated to an hourly salary of $30.8731, which multiplied by the overdrawn hours equaled $3,704.77. The Postal Service then subtracted for retirement contributions using a rate of 0.008, and, because of rounding, decreased the debt to $3,675.10. (Resp. Exhs. 2 at 23–24, 4 at 31–38; Tr. 25–29, 35–37; Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 432.2).
9. When Ms. Brunson did not pay or dispute the invoice, the Postal Service referred the debt to the Treasury Department for collection. 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. Brunson’s wages to collect $4,777.63, which consisted of the original amount of the debt plus the Treasury Department’s collection fees. (Resp. Exh. 1 at 21–22).
10. In response to the AWG notice, Ms. Brunson asked for a hearing on the existence and amount of the debt and the garnishment amount (Pet. Exh. 1 at 1). The matter was then referred to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings. Based on Ms. Brunson’s election, I held a hearing by videoconference in December 2023. (Notice of Docketing, July 20, 2023; Order, Nov. 3, 2023).

DECISION

A separated employee’s negative annual leave balance equates to a salary overpayment, entitling the Postal Service to recover the monetary value of the unearned annual leave under the Debt Collection Act. ELM § 512.72. To recover, the Postal Service bears the initial burden of proving the existence and amount of the debt by a preponderance of the evidence. 31 C.F.R. § 285.11(f)(8); Terrell v. United States Postal Service, AO 21-77, 2021 WL 5579791, at *2 (Sept. 23, 2021). If the Postal Service meets its burden, the burden shifts to the petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that no debt exists, or the amount of the debt is incorrect. Id.
Here, the Postal Service proved, through payroll journals and witness testimony, that Ms. Brunson was overdrawn 120 hours of annual leave upon her separation from the Postal Service. It also proved that the monetary value of that leave was at least the amount of the original Postal Service invoice.
The Postal Service explained that the amount sought over the invoice amount, which is $1,102.53, is the Treasury Department’s collection fees. The Postal Service is generally required to transfer delinquent debts to the Treasury Department for collection. 31 U.S.C. § 3711(g); 31 C.F.R. § 285.12(c). The Treasury Department may charge fees sufficient to cover the full cost of providing its services provided they do not exceed the amounts collected; the fees are added to the debt. 31 U.S.C. § 3717(e); 31 C.F.R. § 285.12(j); Treasury Financial Manual vol. 1, pt. 3, § 5040.20; see also, e.g., Blalock v. United States Postal Service, AWG 21-194, 2021 WL 6590480, at *1 (Dec. 16, 2021) (30 percent collection fee initially); Terrell, AO 21-77, at *1 (30 percent collection fee).   
I next turn to Ms. Brunson’s defenses. Ms. Brunson testified that she took considerable annual leave in 2020 because she had been exposed to COVID-19 at a wedding in April 2020, which she asserted was before the Postal Service offered COVID-19 leave. She also testified that she worked so much uncompensated overtime while at the Postal Service that it would balance out the debt. Finally, she questioned why the Postal Service did not compensate her for her positive sick leave balance of 5.51 hours. (Resp. Exh. 4 at 31; Tr. 30–42, 49–54).
In general, a petitioner’s demand for recovery of a debt allegedly owed by the Postal Service is not heard under the Debt Collection Act. Eric A. Van Dyke, DCA 12-2, 2012 WL 13034259, *1 (Apr. 26, 2012). However, if the petitioner’s demand is so closely related to the Postal Service’s overpayment claim as to constitute a single debt dispute, I may hear it. Ashley A. Nokes, DCA 14-149, 2014 WL 12767839, *2 (July 16, 2014); Jerome L. Smith, AO 08-308, 2009 WL 10690538, *2 (I.D. Sept. 17, 2009).
Ms. Brunson’s belated claims for COVID-19 leave in 2020, overtime compensation over 21 years of service, and accumulated sick leave are not so closely related to the 2021 annual leave debt before me as to constitute a single debt dispute. They are thus not before me.
Even if they were, my decision would remain the same. Regarding the COVID-19 leave, in March 2020, Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Pub. L. No. 116-127, 134 Stat. 177 (2020). Included within FFCRA was the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, which authorized the Postal Service to provide up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave (FFCRA leave) in specific circumstances related to COVID-19. Id. at 195‒201 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2601 note). Such circumstances included being advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine because of concerns related to COVID-19. Id. Contrary to Ms. Brunson’s testimony, FFCRA leave was available starting April 1, 2020. Id. Coverage however expired on December 31, 2020. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 826.160(d). The statute of limitations for complaints, which were to be filed with the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, was two years from the date of the alleged violation (or three years for alleged willful violations). 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c); 29 C.F.R. § 826.152. 
Here, the period for requesting FFCRA leave has expired, and the statute of limitations has run. Even if not, Ms. Brunson did not present sufficient proof that she qualified for any FFCRA leave in April 2020 or shortly thereafter. For instance, she did not provide a health care provider’s note. In addition, contrary to Ms. Brunson’s testimony, she used minimal annual leave during that time. Specifically, she used only 2.4 hours of annual leave from April 4‒June 5, 2020 (week 2 of pay period 8 to week 2 of pay period 12) (Resp. Exh. 4 at 74‒80).³
Regarding sick leave, the Postal Service does not pay for unused sick leave. ELM § 513.81. Instead, some credit may be granted in calculating retirement or survivor annuity depending on the employee’s retirement system. Id. § 513.821.
Finally, Ms. Brunson’s testimony that she worked an unspecified amount of uncompensated overtime while working for the Postal Service is, by itself, not sufficient to prove her overtime assertion (Tr. 50‒51).
The issue I may decide 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 Ms. Brunson was.  
In sum, the Postal Service met its burden of proof, and Ms. Brunson 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. Brunson 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.⁴