In the Matter of the Petition by:

 WENDY KELLER,
 518 Bellview Street,
 Altoona, PA  16602-4006

 P.S. Docket No. DCA-88

 03/8/91

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Arthur Cohen, Esq., 1407 Blair Village,
 Hollidaysburg, PA 16648 

 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT: James A. Friedman, Esq.,
 Robert P. Sindermann, Jr., Esq., Office of Labor Law,
 United States Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-1132

This proceeding was initiated on December 17, 1990, by the filing of a Petition for Hearing under the Debt Collection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5514, and applicable regulations, 39 C.F.R. Part 961.

Although the Petition was received more than 15 days after Petitioner received the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, it was timely because it was mailed before the expiration of the 15-day period. Although the Petition was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of 39 CFR § 961.4, it was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. Pursuant to an order, Petitioner filed a proper Amended Petition substantially complying with § 961.4 on January 23, 1991. Accordingly, the statutory 60-day period for issuing a Decision commenced on that date (Orders dated February 13 and 21, 1991).

Petitioner contests the alleged debt of $252.43 representing salary paid to her for August 8, 9, and 10, 1990. The Postal Service contends that the money was erroneously paid to her with the understanding that she was on sick leave, but that Petitioner should be considered to be on leave without pay on those dates.

As agreed by the parties, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based upon the documentary evidence presented by the parties on or before February 13, 1991, together with all pleadings, stipulations, and briefs.

1. Wendy Keller ("Petitioner") is an EAS-11 Telemarketing Assistant at the Stamped Envelope Unit, Williamsburg, PA 16693-0500.

2. On July 26, 1990, Petitioner had been off work for several days, and Petitioner's supervisor, Ronald P. Williams, directed her to report to work on July 30. He stated that if she was absent on that day, that she would have to supply adequate documentation to support the reasons for her absence. He also required her to supply documentation to support her absences since July 19, 1990. He warned that she would be subject to disciplinary action, including termination if she did not comply (Ex. 1).

3. Petitioner submitted a letter dated July 20, 1990, from Vernon F. Bradley, M.D., indicating that she was under his care, and that she was advised "to stay off work for a couple days due to the problems I have been treating her for."

4. On July 27, 1990, Mr. Williams placed Petitioner on restricted sick leave, which required her to support all applications for sick leave by submitting medical documentation or other acceptable evidence. In accordance with Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) 513.36, medical documentation was to be signed and furnished by the attending physician or other attending practitioner. Mr. Williams stated that the documentation must explain the nature of her illness and indicate that she was unable to perform normal duties, indicate the dates of treatment or examination, and the dates she was unable to perform duties.

5. On August 3, 1990, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Ben Morgan Jones, a clinical psychologist. He found her "very upset concerning circumstances at her job" and under stress. On August 6 he administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory examination which confirmed that she was experiencing a high level of anxiety. He also concluded that her mental state resulted in stress-related physical problems. On August 14, Dr. Jones sent a report to Petitioner's attorney, Arthur Cohen, Esq., and a copy to Petitioner. Dr. Jones stated: "due to Mrs. Keller's anxiety and stress-related problems, I would not recommend that she return to work until she has been able to satisfactorily resolve her job-related concerns since this might compromise her mental and physical health."

6. On August 6 and 7, Petitioner called Mr. Williams and requested that she be put on sick leave so that she could go to appointments with her doctors. Those requests were granted. Petitioner did not report for work on August 8, 9, or 10, and did not call her office on those dates. Petitioner was initially placed on sick leave for the latter three days and salary of $252.43 was paid accordingly.

7. On August 15, Petitioner was examined by Thomas A. Hancharik, D.M.D., who found muscular spasms in her jaw. Dr. Hancharik reported his findings in a letter dated August 31, which was later provided to Respondent.

8. Dr. Robert G. Wertz, D.D.S., examined Petitioner on August 20 for the same problem. In a letter dated September 26, which was later provided to Respondent, he stated that the pain resulted from a muscle spasm induced by Petitioner's clenching and grinding her teeth.

9. On August 23 Mr. Williams wrote Petitioner that he had not heard from her since she requested sick leave on August 7, and that he had not received medical justification. He stated that as of August 8, she was considered Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL). He requested that she provide him with appropriate medical documentation within 24 hours of receipt of this letter.

10. It is not clear whether either Petitioner or her attorney provided Mr. Williams with a copy of the August 14 letter from Dr. Jones at this time. n1 However, Petitioner submitted a letter to Mr. Williams from Dr. Bradley dated August 6 indicating that she was still under his care. He stated that she was off work due to a cyst on her ovary and needed rest (Ex. 5). She also submitted a letter dated August 17 from Dr. Bradley indicating that she was still under his care. The letters from Drs. Hancharik and Wertz had not yet been written.

n1 Even if not submitted to Mr. Williams at this time, this letter and the two letters from Drs. Hancharik and Wertz were submitted to Headquarters by Petitioner's attorney with his letter dated November 7, 1990.

11. On August 28, Mr. Williams advised headquarters that Petitioner had been absent since August 3, that she had requested sick leave for August 6 and 7, and "only provided us with minimal medical documentation of her illness." He requested that she be required to report for a fitness-for-duty examination by a doctor.

12. On September 10 and October 1, Petitioner was directed to report for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. On each occasion, she was told that she may submit any supporting medical documentation she may have to the examining doctor. Petitioner failed to appear for, or reschedule, either appointment (Exhs. 8-11).

13. On October 26, Petitioner was notified that she owed the Postal Service $252.43 since she was paid for 24 hours of sick leave for August 8-10, 1990. She was told that she should have been considered in a Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status at that time.

14. On October 31, 1990, Respondent proposed to terminate Petitioner's employment for failure to report for the fitness-for-duty examinations.

15. On November 7, 1990, Petitioner's attorney, Arthur Cohen, Esq., wrote to Joseph Y. Peng, General Manager, Stamp Manufacturing Division at Headquarters in Washington, DC. In part, he responded to the allegation of indebtedness, contending that Petitioner should be considered on paid sick leave on August 8-10, 1990. He stated that she was suffering from an illness caused by job related stress. In this regard, he enclosed a copy of the above-mentioned letter from Dr. Jones dated August 14, 1990, which stated that she should not return to work due to her anxiety and stress-related problems. As indicated previously, the letter stated that the doctor had seen her on August 3 and 6, 1990, and made his diagnosis based upon his examinations on those dates. His test on August 6 confirmed that "she is experiencing a high level of anxiety at this time along with her occupational problems."

16. Since Dr. Jones examined Petitioner and found her ill on August 3 and 6, and stated on August 14 that she should not yet return to work, his letter makes it clear that he considered Petitioner too ill to go to work in the interim on August 8-10, 1990, the dates in question. Accordingly, the letter constitutes acceptable documentary evidence supporting Petitioner's application for sick leave on those dates.

17. On November 29, 1990, Respondent sent Petitioner the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act demanding the $252.43 in issue.

1. Section 513.361 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) provides that medical documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity for work is required for three days or less when the employee is on restricted sick leave (See ELM § 513.37). The documentation must be furnished by the employee's attending physician or other attending practitioner. ELM § 513.364.

2. Respondent Postal Service contends that the medical documentation provided by Petitioner does not support the application for sick leave for August 8, 9, and 10, 1990. That contention is rejected. As required by ELM § 513.364, the letter from Dr. Jones dated August 14, 1990, provides an explanation of the nature of Petitioner's illness sufficient to indicate to management that she was unable to perform her normal duties for the three days in issue. Although the letter does not specifically mention August 8-10, it is obvious from the letter that Dr. Jones considered her unable to perform her duties on those dates due to anxiety. In this regard, the letter demonstrates that his examinations of August 3 and 6 revealed a stress-related illness, and that on August 14 he still considered Petitioner too ill to return to work.

3. Also, Respondent's contention that Dr. Jones's August 14 letter constitutes inadequate evidence because it was "not even addressed to postal officials" is rejected. Although ELM § 513.364 requires that the documentation be "furnished" by the physician, it does not preclude the submission by an employee of a letter from her doctor addressed to the employee or her counsel.

4. Accordingly, Petitioner's application for sick leave for August 8, 9, and 10, 1990 is supported by acceptable medical documentation and should be granted. Therefore, the payment of $252.43 to Petitioner for sick leave for those dates was proper. Consequently, Petitioner is not required to repay the amount demanded in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated November 29, 1990.

5. The Petition is sustained.