In the Matter of the Petition by	) March 5, 1996
					)
COLLEEN H. STOKES			)
100 Edgewood Drive			)
					)
	at				)
					)
Sarver, PA 16055-9260			) P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-437

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		William M. Brady
					Chairman, NAPUS
					Postmaster Representative Committee
					300 South Main Street
					Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Anthony J. Bernat
					Labor Relations Specialist
					717 State Street
					Erie, PA 16515-9995

Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the February 6, 1996 Decision in this case. Petitioner replied on February 26, 1996.

The Decision held that, even though Petitioner violated Postal Service policy by allowing stamp stock to be stored overnight in counterline drawers, she was not liable for the loss of stock stolen by burglars because the evidence did not prove that her failure to follow proper procedures caused the loss. The evidence showed that the office was equipped with a security container and a safe, either of which was a proper facility for storing stamp stock. In addition to forcing open the locked counterline drawers, the burglars also broke open the safe and stole items contained therein.

In the Motion for Reconsideration, Respondent argues that the record contains no proof that all the counterline stock would have been stored in the safe, rather than in the security container,⁽¹⁾ and no proof that the thieves gained access to all compartments of the safe.⁽²⁾ Therefore, they argue, it is not certain that all stock placed in the safe would have been stolen.

What Respondent says may be true, but these arguments misplace the burden of proof. When, as in this case, we know why there was a shortage, i.e., stock was stolen by burglars, the Postal Service must show not only that the employee failed to follow prescribed practices, but also that the failure caused the loss. Viewed in the light most favorable to Respondent, the record shows only that Ms. Stokes' dereliction might have contributed to the loss. It is not her burden to prove that the stock would have been lost. It is the Postal Service's burden to prove that it would not have been lost if she had followed proper procedures. That burden was not met.

Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The February 6, 1996 Decision is affirmed.

						Bruce R. Houston
						Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge

2. The Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum simply says, "A Model 279 Fireproof Safe containing Rural Route Carrier credits was overturned and entry gained by prying/peeling the bottom of the safe."