Debt Collection Act Petition
Orlanda Adams v. United States Postal Service
Party Representatives:
Albert E. Lum, for Petitioner
Tina Harris, Labor Representative, for United States Postal Service
FINAL DECISION
The Postal Service believes it over-compensated Petitioner, Orlanda Adams, for mileage costs in 2022 while she was detailed to two postal facilities away from her regular duty station. Ms. Adams asked for reimbursement for, and later received, mileage expenses based on the distance from her residence to her temporary duty stations. The Postal Service argues that Ms. Adams was not entitled to mileage expenses from her residence, but only from her address of record to the temporary duty stations. Because it paid the expenses based on the further distance, the Postal Service now seeks to collect a debt based on the alleged over-payment.
I convened a hearing in January 2024. Both parties called and examined witnesses, submitted documents, and presented argument. As explained below, the debt is invalid, and the Postal Service may not collect it by involuntary administrative salary offset.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ms. Adams began working for the Postal Service in 2014 (Tr. 118). Ms. Adams’s address of record with the Postal Service at all times relevant to this dispute was in Greensboro, North Carolina (Resp. Exhs. 4, 6–7). As of September 2016, however, she lived in Martinsville, Virginia (Tr. 54–55).
From March 1 to August 30, 2022, Ms. Adams was detailed to a postal facility in Salisbury, North Carolina, as an acting supervisor1 (Tr. 61, 74–75, 92). Ms. Adams then had a detail assignment in Concord, North Carolina, running from the last week of September 2022 until March 2023 (Tr. 116–17). Although the parties did not have a written agreement, Ms. Adams’s supervisors agreed to pay her for her commuting mileage to and from those assignments (Tr. 100–01).
During her detail in Salisbury, Ms. Adams claimed, and was paid for, 30,300 miles based on driving from her home in Martinsville. The Postal Service, calculating the allowable mileage from Ms. Adams’s address of record in Greensboro, believes Ms. Adams was entitled to only 18,450 miles. (Resp. Exh. 29).2
During her detail in Concord, Ms. Adams claimed, and was paid for, 16,800 miles based on driving from her home in Martinsville. The Postal Service, calculating the allowable mileage from Ms. Adams’s address of record in Greensboro, believes Ms. Adams was entitled to only 9,240 miles. (Resp. Exh. 29).
Combining the two locations, a Postal Service audit concluded that Ms. Adams was indebted to the Postal Service for $11,802.61 (Resp. Exh. 29; Tr. 18–22). On June 9, 2023, the Postal Service issued Ms. Adams a Letter of Debt Determination and invoice for that amount based on the audit (Resp. Exhs. 2–3). That was followed by a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset under the Debt Collection Act on July 6, 2023, for the same amount (See docket filing on July 13, 2023).
DECISION
When the Postal Service seeks to recover over-paid travel expenses, it bears the initial burden to prove that an employee was overpaid. Kerdklai v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-211, 2018 WL 1606052 (March 8, 2018).
The Postal Service agreed to pay Ms. Adams for her travel (based on mileage) during her temporary assignments in Salisbury and Concord. The Postal Service, however, believes it is obligated only for mileage expenses to and from Ms. Adams’s address of record, not her actual residence in Martinsville. To support this assertion, the Postal Service relies on Ms. Adams’s address of record in the Postal Service’s personnel system. That reliance is misplaced.
The Postal Service conceded that it typically does not execute a written agreement in a situation like this one. In this case, we have only an oral agreement between Ms. Adams and her supervisor to compensate Ms. Adams for the mileage to and from her temporary assignments. (Tr. 100–01).
The record is not clear on whether Ms. Adams’s supervisor knew that she lived in Martinsville rather than at her address of record in Greensboro. The Postal Service, however, conceded that if Ms. Adams had changed her address of record, it would have agreed to pay the full mileage from Martinsville. The Postal Service only sought reimbursement for the mileage it paid because Ms. Adams did not change her address of record in her personnel file. (Tr. 140–43).
Given that the parties’ oral agreement did not depend on Ms. Adams’s address—and given the fact that the Postal Service was willing to pay mileage from Martinsville—the Postal Service has not shown that it suffered an actual financial loss when it reimbursed Ms. Adams. The Postal Service is therefore not entitled to collect the debt underlying this petition by involuntary administrative salary offset.
* * *
The Postal Service also argued that Ms. Adams improperly claimed mileage for several Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Because the Postal Service believed that Ms. Adams was authorized to work only on non-holiday Mondays through Fridays, it wanted to deny any mileage for the weekend and holiday mileage. The testimony, however, contradicted this argument. Two of Ms. Adams’s supervisors credibly testified that they approved the weekend and holiday work, explaining that as an acting Postmaster, Ms. Adams was responsible for getting the work done. Therefore, if the offices were short-staffed—which they were—Ms. Adams needed to do whatever was necessary to get the mail delivered, including doing so herself. (Tr. 63–70, 78–79, 85, 100–01). Ms. Adams was therefore entitled to the mileage she claimed for these days.
ORDER
The petition is granted. The Postal Service may not collect the debt underlying this petition by involuntary administrative salary offset.
Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge