In the Matter of the Petition by:

 TERESSA E. JAMES,
 815 E. 53rd Street,
 Chicago, IL  60615-4945

 P.S. Docket No. AO-2

 03/14/91

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  Stephen J. Knorr, Esq.,
 Federal Defender Program, United States District Court, Suite 1142,
 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL  60604-1765 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew C. Jagusiak, Esq.,
 Postal Inspection Service, United States Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-2181

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which found that the Postal Service had failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to support its demand against Petitioner for losses incurred due to Petitioner's alleged theft of registered mail. Petitioner opposes the appeal.

On September 21, 1989, Petitioner Teressa E. James, a former Postal Service employee, filed a Petition seeking review of a Postal Inspection Service Letter of Demand for repayment of $10,968.28 covering losses alleged to have resulted from Petitioner's theft of registered mail during her Postal Service employment.

At a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, Respondent presented the testimony of Hattie M. Landrum, Supervisor of Registry at the Chicago Main Post Office, and Postal Inspector James Brock. Petitioner testified on her own behalf. Both parties introduced documentary evidence.

Ms. Landrum testified about the procedures for handling registered mail at the Chicago Main Post Office, and the steps initially taken when losses were reported. Inspector Brock testified regarding the emergence of a pattern of an unusual number of losses of registered mail traced to the Chicago Main Post Office's registry section, and described how the losses were investigated. He further testified that the investigation culminated in Petitioner's arrest and conviction for theft of registered mail containing currency.

On August 9, 1990, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he found that Respondent had not established a prima facie case supporting its position that Petitioner was responsible for the losses in question. The Administrative Law Judge distinguished the facts of this case from those in Boerner v. United States, 117 F.2d 387 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 587 (1941), relied on by Respondent, and on the basis of the evidence presented concluded that Petitioner was not indebted to the Postal Service.

Respondent asserts that the facts in this case are sufficiently similar to those in Boerner to support a finding that a prima facie case has been made against Petitioner. Respondent argues that the standards required by the Initial Decision narrow the applicability of Boerner to its own particular facts, and that in any event other cases also support its position. Petitioner asserts that the Administrative Law Judge correctly applied the Boerner criteria to the facts of this case, and that the factual differences between Boerner and the present case support the conclusion that Respondent did not establish a prima facie case against Petitioner.

While the facts of Boerner are distinguishable, it is nonetheless clear that Respondent did establish a prima facie case which, absent rebuttal evidence, would support a finding that Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service for the $10,968.28 losses sustained by the registry section of the Chicago Main Post Office. This prima facie case consisted of Respondent's showing that the Postal Inspection Service detected a distinct pattern of losses of mail (Finding of Fact (FOF) 15), investigated those losses (FOF 16) and reasonably narrowed its investigation to focus on Petitioner and one other employee as primary suspects (FOF 12). The investigation resulted in Petitioner's arrest with stolen mail in her possession (FOF 17), which mail fit the pattern Respondent had identified (FOF 15). Petitioner pleaded not guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709, Theft of Mail Matter by Officer or Employee, but was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to two years probation (FOF 17). No further losses of registered mail occurred in the registry section of the Chicago Main Post Office after Petitioner's arrest (FOF 18). Had Petitioner presented no rebuttal evidence, these facts would have supported a judgment in Respondent's favor.

This case, however, does not turn on whether a prima facie case was established. Rather, the issue is whether Respondent has proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner did introduce evidence to rebut Respondent's prima facie case and therefore remand to the Administrative Law Judge for further findings consistent with this decision is unnecessary.

The Administrative Law Judge, after hearing Petitioner's testimony and observing her demeanor, found Petitioner's testimony to be credible (I.D., p. 12). A credibility determination by a presiding officer will not be disturbed unless it is shown to be based on testimony that is inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence. Hanratty v. Dept. of Transportation, 819 F. 2d 286, 288 (Fed. Cir. 1987), Carosella v. United States Postal Service, 816 F. 2d 638, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1987), Hagmeyer v. Dept. of Treasury, 757 F. 2d 1281, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Respondent conceded in its closing statement that the issue is one of credibility (Tr. 142), but it has provided no basis for overturning the Administrative Law Judge's determination. Respondent has neither alleged nor shown that Ms. James' testimony is either inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed evidence.

Accordingly, Respondent's appeal is denied and this administrative offset proceeding is dismissed.