In the Matter of the Petition by ) May 31, 1996
)
BARBARA BROOKS )
8807 Braeside Drive )
)
at )
)
Lanham, MD 20706-1922 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-403
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Charles Scialla
453 Preakness Avenue, #5
Patterson, NJ 07502-1121
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Julia A. Bills
United States Postal Service
900 Brentwood Road, NE
Washington, DC 20066-7602
Petitioner, Barbara Brooks, filed a petition requesting an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), to challenge Respondent's issuance of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets against her in the amount of $32,134.37. Such amount represented a shortage discovered in the Bethesda, MD Post Office main stamp stock for which Petitioner was responsible. Petitioner contends that the count of the main stamp stock was short due to errors made by the Stamp Destruction Committee in processing a prior shipment of stamps from Bethesda for destruction.
1. Petitioner, Barbara Brooks, is the finance supervisor for the main post office in Bethesda, MD. As such, she has the responsibility for the main stamp stock for all of Bethesda (Transcript (Tr.) 8, 86).
2. On or about December 17, 1994, Petitioner and the supervisor of customer services at the Bethesda main post office prepared a form 3238, "Stamps & Stamped Paper Destruction Certificate," utilized to send excess stamps to the Stamp Destruction Committee, for destruction (Petitioner submission, Nov. 30, 1995). The two jointly had prepared similar forms five or six times in the past (Tr. 16). In this particular occasion both parties, as is the customary procedure, counted the stamps and the supervisor of customer services entered the figures (amounts) on the form (Tr. 17).
3. The Stamp Destruction Committee consists of three persons. All three count and verify the quantity and value of stamps received for destruction. This procedure was followed for the December 17 shipment of stamps which accompanied the form 3238 (Tr. 55-57). There were two errors contained on the form 3238 received by the Committee, both multiplication errors. 40,000 stamps times $2.90 was shown as $11,600, rather than the correct amount of $116,000. 40,000 stamps times $.19 was shown as $11,600, rather than the correct amount of $7,600. The Committee corrected the mistakes in green ink and returned the corrected form to Bethesda (Tr. 57).
4. Internal postal procedures mandate that when a change is made to the Form 3238 by the Stamp Destruction Committee the change should be initialed by the Committee members. That procedure was not followed in the changes made to the Form 3238, as described in Finding of Fact No. 3 (Exhibit B; Tr. 43, 58).
5. Procedures further provide that when a discrepancy is discovered between the Committee's count and calculation and the amounts or calculations shown on the form 3238 that the office preparing the 3238 should be called and asked if they wanted the shipment of stamps returned to recount it. No telephone call was made to Bethesda in this instance (Tr. 17-18, 42, 59, 91).
6. Once the corrected form 3238 was returned to Bethesda, Petitioner discovered an error on the form that the Committee had made in the amount $2320 (Tr. 19, 77, 92). Ms. Brooks called the Committee and advised them of the error and was asked by the Committee to send the Committee three (3) blank form 3238s signed by herself and the customer service supervisor so that a new finalized and corrected form 3238 could be approved by the Committee. Ms. Brooks did so, thus agreeing to the actual final figures inserted by the Committee on the form, although she had never actually seen the figures (Tr. 59, 81, 92-93). The latter procedure was highly unusual (Tr. 81, 92).
7. Two audits of the Bethesda main stamp stock were thereafter made and on March 22, 1995, Petitioner agreed to the accuracy of the second audit which showed a shortage of $32,134.37 (Respondent's Answer with attachments; Tr. 93).
8. Petitioner thereafter was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset Under the Debt Collection Act in the amount of $32,134.37 and filed her Petition for Hearing (Petition for Hearing with attachments).
Respondent has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the shortage of $32,134.37 in the main stock of the Bethesda Post Office represented a loss to the Postal Service. For if the shortage resulted from sending $32,134.3 worth of stamps to the committee without a commensurate reduction in the main stock accountability and the stamps were destroyed Respondent suffered no monetary loss.
Petitioner contends that there were so many irregularities in the committee's handling of the shipment of stamps to be destroyed, including the failure to initial changes on the form 3238, the failure of the committee to call Bethesda when the form 3238 errors were found and the committee inserting the final figures for destruction on the blank pre-signed form 3238, that the loss in main stamp stock was attributable to the committee.
Respondent, however, argues that Petitioner should be held strictly accountable for the loss to the main stamp stock. Respondent contends that any errors committed by the committee in handling the Bethesda shipment were only procedural, not substantive, and that the evidence in the record clearly supports a holding that Petitioner should pay Respondent the amount in controversy.
In this instance, Respondent and Petitioner agreed to the accuracy of the second audit which showed a shortage of $32,134.37. Thus in order to be absolved of liability for repayment of such amount Petitioner must establish that she exercised reasonable care in the exercise of her duties. Linda McFarland, P. S. Docket No. DCA 95-81 (July 6, 1995).
However, in this matter the record is void of any evidence that Appellant exercised reasonable care in the exercise of her duties as the individual accountable for the main stamp stock. Further, her arguments pertaining to certain errors committed by the committee as the bases for the stock shortage are not persuasive. The alleged mistakes consisted of changing multiplication errors made by Petitioner, not errors in the stamp count itself. Thus no good reason existed to call the Bethesda office and ask if the shipment of stamps should be returned for a recount. Although, the procedure utilized in execution of the final, revised form 3238, was unusual, Petitioner freely agreed to that procedure and has not shown that the figures contained therein were inaccurate. Accordingly, since Respondent has met its burden of showing a shortage of $32,134.37 in the Bethesda main stamp stock, and Petitioner has not shown she used reasonable care in exercising her duties as custodian of the stock, nor shown the shortage was attributable to any actions of the committee, Petitioner is liable for the $32,134.37 claimed by Respondent.
The Petition is denied.
James D. Finn, Jr. Administrative Judge