In the Matter of the Petition by	) November 3, 1993
					)
					)
 ALPHONSO L. GAYDON, SR.		)
 P.O. Box 4076				)
					)
 at 	 				)
					)
 Winston-Salem, NC 27115-4076		) P.S. Docket No. DCA-173


 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:Melvyn H. Brown, Jr., Esq.
 508 West Brookline Street
 Winston-Salem, NC 27127-2836

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:Jeffrey F. Perrotta
 Labor Relations Specialist
 United States Postal Service
 3701 W. Wendover Avenue
 Greensboro, NC 27495-0001

Petitioner, Alphonso L. Gaydon, Sr., filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of the September 21, 1993 Final Decision Under the Debt Collection Act of 1982. He argues that evidence he presented at the hearing rebutted the Postal Service's claim that a loss occurred and that the Decision reached inconsistent results in holding Petitioner liable for the stock shortage shown in the audit but not for the trust fund discrepancy because his defenses to both were the same. He also contends the Decision should not have mentioned Petitioner's failure to prove that bad faith, racial bias, or retaliation for a workers' compensation claim were behind the Postal Service's audit of his post office and pursuit of the Debt Collection Act case against him because he was denied an opportunity to support those arguments at the hearing. Respondent was afforded an opportunity to reply to Petitioner's Motion but did not do so.

Petitioner has not supported his Motion with any argument or reference to any relevant evidence that was not considered in the Decision. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the record and conclude that the Decision correctly found Petitioner liable for the stock shortage identified in the audit.

The evidence demonstrated that the actual stock and cash on hand at the Wallburg Post Office was $281.37 less than what the office's accounts showed should have been there (Decision at 9). Thus, a true shortage resulting in a financial loss to the Postal Service was shown, and Petitioner's explanations for the shortage were not persuasive. Specifically, the Financial Adjustment Memoranda Petitioner offered did not show that the shortage was only a "paper" shortage. Petitioner testified that the information from the Memoranda had been entered in the accounts of the office, and each Memorandum bore a notation that it had been posted. Therefore, the auditor's testimony that unrecorded Memoranda could have affected the audit does not help Petitioner. The conclusion in the Decision that Petitioner did not conscientiously enforce Postal policies and procedures in managing the Wallburg Post Office was supported by ample evidence, and, therefore, there was no basis for granting Petitioner relief for the loss.

The discrepancy in the trust fund account was not shown to be a true shortage. Respondent demonstrated that the Wallburg Post Office did not have on hand backup documentation (customer receipts, etc.) evidencing payments into the trust fund equal to the amount shown to be in the account. However, Respondent did not show that the difference caused a financial loss to the Postal Service. Contrary to Petitioner's argument, there were grounds for reaching different conclusions on the discrepancies identified in the two accounts.

Petitioner contends he was precluded from offering evidence to show that postal officials decided to audit his office and assert the claim against him because of racial animosity or to retaliate for Petitioner's filing of a claim for an on-the-job injury, and that, therefore, mention in the Decision that he had failed to support his arguments in this regard was improper and prejudicial. He bases his claim on a telephone conference between his counsel, Respondent's representative and the Administrative Judge in which Petitioner alleges he was denied the opportunity to explore the motives of postal officials responsible for asserting this claim against him. In the August 20, 1993 conference, held four days before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner's counsel complained that Respondent had not advised Petitioner why the audit was conducted when it was, a question Petitioner's counsel posed in an April 18, 1993 letter to Respondent before the Postal Service issued the Notice of Involuntary

Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act ("Notice"). Counsel was advised that the rules governing proceedings under the Debt Collection Act guaranteed him access to postal documents but did not specifically provide for interrogatories. Counsel was told, however, that reasonable inquiry into the motives of those initiating the audit of the Wallburg Post Office would be permitted at the hearing (Order and Memorandum of Telephone Conference, August 23, 1993). Without objection by Respondent, Petitioner's counsel addressed the reasons for the audit through his examination of witnesses (Transcript pages ("Tr.") 16-17, 32, 85, 90). Counsel also examined witnesses regarding the failure of postal officials to respond specifically to his explanations of the audit results before issuing the Notice, a failure Petitioner contended reflected bad faith (Tr. 38, 113-115, 125, 141-142). The Decision accurately notes Petitioner's failure to prove these defenses, which he had raised in a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) to the Postal Service a week before he filed his Petition and had not withdrawn.

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

 					Norman D. Menegat
 					Administrative Judge