In the Matter of the Petition by       ) March 23, 1993
                                        )
 NATHAN RIVALDO                         )
 132 NE Sagamore Terrace                )
                                        )
 at                                     )
                                        )
 Port St. Lucie, FL  34983-1263         ) P. S. Docket No. DCA-158

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:             Charles Scialla
                                        Scialla Associates, Inc.
                                        453 Preakness Ave., Unit 5
                                        Patterson, NJ  07502-1121

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPODNENT:             Robert P. Sindermann, Jr., Esq.
                                        Appellate Division
                                        Law Department
                                        United States Postal Service
                                        Washington, DC  20260-1132

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition in this matter. The motion states that Petitioner is no longer a Postal Service employee and that the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets sent to Petitioner has been withdrawn. A document attached to Respondent's motion verifies that the notice of offsets has been withdrawn.

Petitioner opposes the Motion to Dismiss on various grounds: (1) that Respondent misrepresented the reason for its failure to file a timely response to the petition; (2) that Petitioner would not have retired had he known the notice of offsets would be withdrawn; (3) that the Administrative Judge exceeded his authority in granting Respondent a time extension to respond to the petition; (4) that Petitioner is being deprived of a hearing; (5) that the Administrative Judge has predetermined the outcome of this matter. In regard to (4) above Petitioner has submitted documents which establish that Respondent intends to offset his retirement funds to satisfy the amount ($1,450) previously sought by the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

In regard to arguments (1) and (2) the record does not support a conclusion of misrepresentation by counsel for Respondent, and as discussed below Petitioner will be entitled to an administrative hearing if Respondent pursues its claim, thus his retirement does not deprive him of an opportunity to defend his position. Arguments (3) and (5) do not address the jurisdictional issue at hand. In addition Petitioner has shown no prejudice as the result of the Administrative Judge granting a time extension for Respondent to file a response to the petition. Further, the Administrative Judge has not predetermined the outcome of this matter and as discussed below the matter will not be decided at this time.

Turning to argument (4) that Petitioner is being deprived of a hearing, the Postal Service has adopted regulations for two sets of offset actions -- (a) Debt Collection Act actions against present employees (39 C.F.R. § 961), and (b) Administrative Offset actions against former employees (39 C.F.R. § 966).

An affected individual is entitled to an administrative procedure depending on his or her employment status under one of the two distinct offset actions^1/

In the matter now pending the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Against Petitioner under the Debt Collection Act has been withdrawn. Therefore, since no claim exists against Petitioner under the Debt Collection Act this proceeding must be dismissed. See E. A. Kidd, P. S. Docket No. DCA-150 (Dismissal Feb. 5, 1993).

However, should Respondent attempt to seek attachment of and offset from Petitioner's Civil Service annuity to satisfy the alleged debt Respondent must follow its regulations in regard to administrative offsets. Thereafter Petitioner would be entitled to challenge any determination to offset as provided in 39 C.F.R. § 966. See Joe Achans, P. S. Docket No. DCA-160 (Dismissal March 8, 1993).

This matter is dismissed.

 James  D. Finn, Jr.
 Administrative Judge