In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT LAB
 P. O. Box 1560 at
 Pinellas Park, FL 33565-0000

 P.S. Docket No. 18/157

 11/08/85

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.;
 Robert C. Lowry, Esq.;
 Consumer Protection Division,
 Law Department,
 United States Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-1112 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 John A. Field, III, Esq.;
 Field & Halfhill,
 703 King Street,
 Alexandria, VA 22314-3014  

By motion filed October 15, 1985, Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Postal Service Decision dated September 6, 1985, reversing an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which held that Complainant had failed to prove that Respondent made false representations regarding its work-at-home program to assemble circuit boards. The Postal Service Decision concluded that Complainant had made an unrebutted prima facie showing that the representations alleged in paragraphs 5(a) through (d) of the Complaint were materially false in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005.

In its Motion for Reconsideration, Respondent argues that the Judicial Officer erred in substituting his judgment for the judgment of the Administrative Law Judge on issues of fact, that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the evidence presented at the hearing and that the Judicial Officer failed to take into consideration the availability of Respondent's money back guarantee.

With respect to the "substitution of judgment" argument, Respondent contends that the Judicial Officer, like an appellate court, is bound to accept the findings of fact of the trier of fact unless such findings are clearly erroneous. A similar argument was presented by Respondent and found to be without merit in the Postal Service Decision. Respondent's arguments in its Motion for Reconsideration do not establish that the Postal Service Decision erred in this regard. It is well settled that in proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Postal False Representation statute an agency, unlike an appellate court, may decide all issues de novo and is not bound by the clearly erroneous standard in its review of a decision of an Administrative Law Judge. See e.g., F.C.C. v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358 (1955); Mattes v. United States, 721 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1983); Containerfreight Transp. Co. v. I.C.C., 651 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1981); Atlas Publishing, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 602 F. Supp. 407, 409-410 (S.D. Fla. 1983). The Judicial Officer serves as the "agency" for the purpose of issuing final Postal Service decisions under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 and no rule of the Postal Service limits the extent of the Judicial Officer's review of an Administrative Law Judge's decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 557(b); 39 U.S.C. § 204; 39 C.F.R. § 224.1(c)(4), 952.26; * Atlas Publishing, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, supra; Associated Telephone Directory Publishers, Inc., et al., P.S. Docket No. 13/191 (P.S.D. on Motion for Recon. March 23, 1984).

* Section 952.26 of 39 C.F.R. requires that the entire official record be considered before the final agency decision is rendered by the Judicial Officer.

Under 39 U.S.C. § 3005, a finding of a statutory violation must be based on "evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service." The Postal Service, acting through the Judicial Officer, has consistently held that final agency decisions must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and this conclusion has been upheld by the courts. See Atlas Publishing, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, supra; see also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 (1981). Respondent has not shown that the law, logic or good practice dictates a different result. Thus, contrary to Respondent's contention, the Judicial Officer correctly applied the preponderance of evidence standard in arriving at the final agency decision in this case. See e.g., Atlas Publishing, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, supra; Associated Telephone Directory Publishers, Inc., et al., supra; Stannis Research Inter., P.S. Docket No. 17/60 (P.S.D. July 30, 1984); Telex & twx Directory, P.S. Docket No. 13/6 (P.S.D. April 1, 1983).

The entire record was reviewed by the Judicial Officer in rendering the agency decision in this case. While Respondent appears to suggest that credibility is an important issue in this matter, such is not the case. The differing results reached in the Initial Decision and the Postal Service Decision are not based on differing perceptions of the credibility of witnesses. Rather they are attributed to differing inferences drawn from the evidence presented by Complainant, particularly as it relates to whether Respondent's program could be profitably pursued. From the evidence presented by Complainant, which was not rebutted by Respondent, the Judicial Officer concluded it was more probable than not that participation in the program would not be profitable and that Respondent would not purchase from participants correctly assembled circuit boards. Thus, it was properly concluded that the representations alleged in paragraphs 5(a) through (d) of the Complaint were materially false.

Respondent's final argument pertains to the money back guarantee which is offered to participants. Respondent seems to argue that a finding of falsity cannot be made if a guarantee is offered and refunds made. While the record does support Respondent's assertion that it offers and provides refunds to customers, a money back guarantee does not dispel the effect of a false representation. See Farley v. Heininger, 105 F.2d 79, 84 (D.C. Cir.), cert den. 308 U.S. 587 (1939); Borg-Johnson Electronics, Inc., v. Christenberry, 169 F. Supp. 746, 751 (S.D.N.Y. 1959); G. J. Howard Co. v. Cassidy, 162, F. Supp. 568, 572-73 (E.D.N.Y. 1958); W. G. Charles Co., P.S. Docket Nos. 19/105, 19/161 & 20/32 (P.S.D. Sept. 30, 1985); George M. Ernst, Jr., P.S. Docket No. 13/88 (P.S.D. Aug. 4, 1982). Therefore, this argument has no effect on the falsity issue.

Upon consideration of all of Respondent's arguments in support of its Motion for Reconsideration, it is concluded that no error of fact or law has been shown. Accordingly, the Postal Service Decision is affirmed and Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

During the pendency of Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration the return portion of the False Representation Order issued with the Postal Service Decision was stayed at the request of Respondent. In papers filed with the Judicial Officer, Respondent has indicated an intent to seek judicial review of an adverse decision on reconsideration. In order to maintain the status quo established by the stay, the return portion of the False Representation Order will remain in effect for a period of thirty days from the date of this decision. If Respondent does not present evidence within the thirty-day period that it has filed a court appeal, the False Representation Order will be placed in full force and effect.