Docket No. AWG 25-31

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service seeks to collect a debt of $1,101.84 from Amber Hagans by administrative wage garnishment through the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”). The Postal Service’s claim of debt is based on an emergency salary advance that was not fully repaid when Ms. Hagans separated from the agency. The debt was ultimately referred to the Treasury Department, which collected the alleged debt in full by administrative offset. In her defense, Ms. Hagans challenges the validity of the debt based on an alleged underpayment of her wages. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ms. Hagans was employed as a Rural Carrier Associate until December 12, 2023 (Tr. 44; Resp. Exh. 3 at 32). Due to a payroll error in pay period 24/2023, the Postal Service issued an emergency salary advance of $1,560 to Ms. Hagans on November 24, 2023 (Tr. 24–28; Pet. Exh. 2 at 12). Local management immediately submitted documents to the Accounting Service Center to ensure that Ms. Hagans received her wages for pay period 24/2023 as payroll adjustments in later pay periods. After the adjustments were completed, the salary advance became an overpayment. The emergency salary advance was not processed until pay period 05/2024 (Tr. 24, 34; Resp. Exh. 2, Resp. Exh. 3 at 33). Because Ms. Hagans had already separated from the Postal Service by the time the emergency salary advance was processed, an invoice was created to collect it (Tr. 37–38; Resp. Exh. 1). Ms. Hagans requested a hearing on November 1, 2024 and the Treasury Department referred this matter to the Judicial Officer Department for further proceedings (AWG Hearing Request). I held a hearing via videoconference in May 2025. In the interim, however, the Treasury Department collected the debt via administrative offset (Tr. 60).

DECISION

Through testimony and exhibits, the Postal Service proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Hagans was paid wages twice—first by money order and later through payroll adjustments. More specifically, an Accounting Service Center representative testified that $1,560 was remitted by money order and adjustments were processed in pay periods 25/2023, 26/2023, 05/2024, and 06/2024 (Tr. 16–20, 28; Resp. Exh.3). Indeed, at the hearing, Ms. Hagans conceded that she received the emergency salary advance (Tr. 54–55). She insisted, however, that the adjustments reflected wages for hours she worked in the respective pay periods instead of wages from pay period 24/2023 (Tr. 54–55). In other words, Ms. Hagans alleged that the Postal Service underpaid her.
In general, we will not hear a petitioner’s demand to recover an underpayment of salary allegedly owed by the Postal Service in a Debt Collection Act petition. We have, however, made an exception to that general rule if the petitioner’s demand is so closely related to the Postal Service’s overpayment claim as to constitute a single debt dispute. Brunson v. United States Postal Service, AWG 23-347, 2024 WL 1209346 (Feb. 29, 2024). Here, Ms. Hagans testified that a disagreement between new supervisors at the local office caused a timekeeping error around the same time as the payroll error in 24/2023 (Tr. 45–47). Even assuming that this disagreement is sufficiently related to the overpayment to constitute a single debt dispute, I find that Ms. Hagans’ argument lacks merit.
As proof of being underpaid, Ms. Hagans compared the difference in her paycheck amounts before the payroll error in 24/2023 to those after it to show that her wages were miscalculated. She testified that she worked the same number of hours in August 2023, when she allegedly earned a paycheck for $2,979.83, through December 8, 2023, when her $2,770 paycheck included a pay adjustment of $343.01. (Tr. 32, 50–51). Ms. Hagans’ belief that she was entitled to additional pay based on the higher amount from August 2023 is contradicted by the bank records she submitted. Those records show that she earned $2,203.98 on October 13, 2023, $2,368.14 on October 27, 2023, and $2,211.93 on November 10, 2023—all of which are more consistent with the amount she earned on December 8, 2023, before the pay adjustment. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that Ms. Hagans failed to prove a salary underpayment for pay period 24/2023 to offset the debt. ¹

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED. If the debt has not been fully paid, the Postal Service, through the Treasury Department, may collect any remaining balance by administrative wage garnishment.