Docket No. DCA 24-511

FINAL DECISION

The Postal Service seeks to collect from Ms. Hicks 100% of her applicable daily rates of pay for 10 days because it erred in coding her overtime work. With Invoice No. 703575119, the Postal Service seeks to collect $562.40 for two of the 10 days. With Invoice No. 703575120, it seeks to collect $1,928.10 for the eight remaining days.
For the reasons discussed below, the petition is denied in part and granted in part. Ms. Hicks is liable for only Invoice No. 703575119. The Postal Service may collect that debt by involuntary administrative salary offset. The Postal Service however did not meet its burden of proof for Invoice No. 703575120. It may not collect that debt by involuntary administrative salary offset.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Hicks has worked for the Postal Service since 2008 and has been a full-time rural carrier since 2018. For nearly all that time, she has worked at the Schenectady–Heritage Station Post Office in New York (hereinafter “unit”). (Resp. Exh. 1 at 14; Tr. 53, 55–56).¹
2. Ms. Hicks was on a list of employees willing to work on their scheduled days off, referred to by the parties as “relief days.” (Resp. Exh. 4; Tr. 16).
3. As compensation for working those days, Ms. Hicks could choose from three options, two of which are relevant here:
1. Receive a paid day off, referred to by the parties as an “X day,” that would be scheduled by the Postal Service and, during the pay period of the day she worked, be paid 50% of her daily rate of pay (also known as Days Assigned Carrier Absent (DACA) 3 or Code 38); or
2. Be paid 150% of her daily rate of pay (also known as DACA 5 or Code 53).
(Resp. Exh. 3 at 35; Tr. 16–17, 24–25, 28–29, 57–58; Handbook F-21, Time and Attendance, §§
581.143–.144, 584.1).
4. The Postal Service should schedule X days so they are used within 12 weeks of being earned (Resp. Exh. 3 at 35; Tr. 20, 41; Handbook F-21 § 581.143).
5. In 2022 and 2023, Ms. Hicks earned many X days, but the Postal Service did not schedule all of them within the allotted time of 12 weeks (Resp. Exhs 4–5; Tr. 56).
6. In 2022 and 2023, Ms. Hicks was paid at least five different annual salary rates:
1. in pay periods 12, 16, and 17 of 2022, her salary was $63,814;
2. in pay period 19 of 2022, her salary was $66,452;
3. in pay periods 2–6 of 2023, her salary was $70,426;
4. in pay periods 7–10 of 2023, her salary was $70,650; and
5. in pay periods 10–14 of 2023, her salary was $73,111. (Resp. Exh. 9 at 73–78; Tr. 43, 47–48).
7. In 2023, Ms. Hicks worked at least two routes:
1. during pay periods 3–6 of 2023, she worked a J route, which has 286 days of service.
2. during pay periods 12–14 of 2023, she worked a K route, which has 260 days of service.
(Tr. 43–44, 47–48).
8. In December 2023, the unit was warned to make X-day adjustments before the end of the year, which meant that X days earned more than 12 weeks earlier needed to be changed from DACA 3 to DACA 5 days (Resp. Exh. 4; Tr. 41–42).
9. During pay period 26 of 2023, the unit retroactively adjusted two days in pay period 14 of 2023 from DACA 3 to DACA 5 (Resp. Exh. 5 at 67; Resp. Exh. 9 at 73; Tr. 33–37).
10. As a result, during pay period 26 of 2023, the Postal Service paid Ms. Hicks 100% of her applicable daily rate for those two days, which was $562.40 (gross). To calculate the amount paid, the Postal Service used Ms. Hicks’s annual salary and route days during that pay period, which were $73,111 and 260 days, respectively. Her salary of $73,111 divided by 260 equated to a daily rate of $281.20. 150% of that daily rate was $421.80. Then, for both days, the Postal Service subtracted 50% because Ms. Hicks had been originally paid that amount. (Resp. Exh. 5 at 67; Resp. Exh. 9 at 73; Tr. 28–30, 36–38, 42–47).
11. During pay period 1 of 2024, the unit retroactively adjusted 19 more days from DACA 3 to DACA 5. It adjusted one day each in pay periods 12, 16, 17, and 19 of 2022 and pay
periods 2–10 of 2023, and two days each in pay periods 11–13 of 2023. (Resp. Exh. 5 at 49, 51,
53, 55, 57, 59; Resp. Exh. 9 at 74–78; Tr. 25–27, 33–37).
12. As a result, during pay period 1 of 2024, the Postal Service paid Ms. Hicks 100% of her applicable daily rates of pay for those 19 days. To calculate the amount paid, the Postal Service used the same formulas as in paragraph 10 but substituted the applicable salary rates and route days. It also still subtracted 50% for each of the 19 days even though, as explained below, she had not earned 10 of those days. (Resp. Exh. 9 at 74–78; Tr. 25–27, 47–49).
13. By making these adjustments during pay period 1 of 2024, the unit changed 10 too many X days to DACA 5. Ms. Hicks had only nine X days at the end of pay period 26 of 2023. The adjustments reduced her X-day balance to negative 10 (Pet. Exh. 4; Resp. Exh. 5; Resp. Exh. 9 at 73–74; Tr. 26–27, 51, 54).
14. To correct its error, during pay period 3 of 2024, the unit converted 10 of the days that had been changed to DACA 5 back to DACA 3. Those 10 days were in the following pay periods: one day each in pay periods 3–6 of 2023 and two days each in pay periods 12–14 of 2023. (Resp. Exh. 5; Resp. Exh. 9 at 80–82; Tr. 51).
15. To recover the overpayment caused by the changes from DACA 5 back to DACA 3, the Postal Service first issued an invoice seeking $2,672.16 for pay periods 2–6 and 12–15 of
2023. It then cancelled that invoice and issued two new ones, which did not include pay period 15 of 2023. (Resp. Exh. 4; Tr. 54–55).
16. The two new invoices were as follows:
1. Invoice No. 703575119 dated August 14, 2024 for $562.40 for DACA 5 changing to DACA 3 for pay period 14 of 2023; and
2. Invoice No. 703575120 dated August 14, 2024 for $1,928.10 for DACA 5
changing to DACA 3 for pay periods 3–6 and 12–13 of 2023
(Pet. Exhs. 2–3).
17. The Postal Service based the amount sought with Invoice No. 703573119 on the two days the unit adjusted in pay period 14 of 2023. These days were paid in pay period 26 of 2023. It sought the gross amount because Ms. Hicks was paid these funds in the year before it issued the invoice, and the funds had been reported as wages on her W-2. (Resp. Exh. 9 at 73; Tr. 15–16, 20–25, 42–47).
18. The Postal Service based the amount sought with Invoice No. 703575120 on the days the unit adjusted in pay periods 3–6 (one day each) and 12 13 (two days each) of 2023. These days were all paid in pay period 1 of 2024. It did not use the days adjusted in pay periods 2 or 7–11 of 2023 or pay periods 12, 16, 17, and 19 of 2022. Those days were also all paid in pay period 1 of 2024. With this invoice, for the days selected, the Postal Service gave Ms. Hicks credit for the withholdings made on her behalf for federal taxes and Social Security and Medicare benefits. It did so because Ms. Hicks was paid these funds in the same year that it issued the invoice, and these funds had not yet been reported on a W-2. (Resp. Exh. 9 at 74–78, 80–82; Tr. 18–21, 25–26, 47–51).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Hicks timely filed a petition for hearing with the Judicial Officer Department (JOD) based on the first invoice she received. It was docketed as DCA No. 24-353. When the Postal Service cancelled that invoice, JOD dismissed that petition. (Pet. Exh. 1 at 1–2; Notice of Docketing for Docket No. DCA 24-353, June 17, 2024; Dismissal of Docket No. DCA 24-353, Aug. 29, 2024).
JOD then docketed another petition based on the two new invoices: Docket No. DCA 24- 511 (Notice of Docketing for Docket No. 24-511, Aug. 30, 2024).
A hearing on Docket No. DCA 24-511 was held by video conference on December 3, 2024 (Tr. 1).

DECISION

To recover a salary overpayment, the Postal Service bears the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence and amount of the debt. Terrell v. United States Postal Service, AO 21-77, 2021 WL 5579791, at *2 (Sept. 23, 2021). In other words, the Postal Service must prove it made the overpayment, and it properly calculated the amount of the debt. 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 the exhibits and witness testimony, that it overpaid Ms. Hicks 100% of her daily rate for 10 days. It therefore proved the existence of the debts.
It also proved that Invoice No. 703575119 was properly calculated. It was based on the only two days adjusted in pay period 26 of 2023, and the Postal Service used the correct daily rate for those days.
The Postal Service however did not prove that the amount of Invoice No. 703575120 was properly calculated. It did not prove that the days underlying that invoice, and consequently the daily rates used, were the correct ones. For that invoice, the Postal Service used the applicable daily rates for one day each in pay periods 3–6 and two days each in pay periods 12–13 of 2023. Those were the eight days that the unit adjusted back to DACA 3 during pay period 3 of 2024. But, in pay period 1 of 2024, when the unit made the adjustments that led to the negative X-day balance, it adjusted 19 days spanning pay periods 12, 16, 17, and 19 of 2022 and pay periods 2– 13 of 2023. No one from the unit testified about why it decided to adjust those eight days out of the 19 at issue. The unit did not use a chronological or most-recent-to-least method because days were adjusted in pay periods 7–11 of 2023.
The Postal Service’s one witness was from the Accounting Service Center. He testified knowledgeably about the daily rate calculations, but he was not involved with the unit’s adjustments and could not speak to the unit’s reasoning. He merely explained calculations that were based on the days selected by the unit. (Tr. 22, 26–28, 33–36, 39).
The unit’s selection of days is important because Ms. Hicks’s annual salary and route differed over this time. Using different days out of the 19 adjusted could result in higher or lower debt amounts. Because the Postal Service did not explain why the unit selected the days underlying the debt, it failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it properly calculated the amount of the debt.
Ms. Hicks argued that she should not be liable for both debts because the Postal Service’s position changed several times (Tr. 54–55). While the Postal Service changed its explanations and issued new invoices, it still proved that it overpaid Ms. Hicks 100% of her daily rate for 10 days and that Invoice No. 703575119 was properly calculated. Ms. Hicks has not shown otherwise.
Ms. Hicks also cannot rely on administrative error to relieve herself of Invoice No. 703575120. The Postal Service acknowledged that Ms. Hicks was not at fault and these debts result from administrative error. But, as we have often held, administrative error does not relieve an employee of a valid debt. Lofton v. United States Postal Service, AO 13-313, 2018 WL 1606049, at *2 (March 29, 2018) (remanded on other grounds).
In sum, the Postal Service met its burden of proof on the existence of the debts, and it proved that Invoice No. 703575119 was properly calculated. But it did not prove that Invoice No. 703575120 was properly calculated.

ORDER

The petition is denied in part and granted in part. Ms. Hicks is liable for only Invoice No. 703575119. The Postal Service may collect $562.40 by involuntary administrative salary offset. The Postal Service did not meet its burden of proof for Invoice No. 703575120. It may not collect $1,928.10 by involuntary administrative salary offset.