In the Matter of the Petition by )October 15, 1996
)
ANDREW NORBERG )
26 North Park Avenue )
)
at )
)
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702-4413 )P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-241
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Andrew Norberg
26 North Park Avenue
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702-4413
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Larissa Omelchenko Taran, Esq.
Labor Relations
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 202060-1137
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Andrew Norberg, filed a petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, following receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets alleging that he was indebted to Respondent, United States Postal Service, in the amount of $544.78. The petition was docketed on July 8, 1996, and Respondent was given 15 days in which to file its answer.
On July 25, 1996, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition based on Petitioner's failure to comply with some of the requirements of 39 C.F.R. §961.4, which sets out the required contents of a petition. By Order dated July 26, 1996, the parties were advised that the motion would be held in abeyance and that Petitioner would be given until August 12, 1996, to supply the missing information and documents. Petitioner did so in a submittal dated August 8, 1996, and received in this office on August 14, 1996. By Order dated August 15, 1996, Respondent was directed to file its answer to the petition no later than August 30, 1996.
In a motion filed on August 30, 1996, Respondent's representative requested that the date for filing the answer be extended until September 16, 1996, because the Order of August 15 and Petitioner's August 14 submittal had been misplaced in her office and had not been rediscovered until August 29, 1996. Respondent advised that the labor relations specialist assigned to this matter would file a notice of appearance and would respond. Respondent's motion was granted in an Order dated September 3, 1996.
As of September 24, 1996, neither a notice of appearance from a labor relations specialist nor an answer had been filed by Respondent. By Order of that date, Respondent was advised that the answer was overdue and that if Respondent intended to oppose the petition in this matter, it was to file its answer no later than October 4, 1996. Respondent was further warned that if it failed to file the answer, the petition might be granted without further proceedings. As of this date, no answer has been filed and Respondent has given no other indication that it intends to oppose the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is granted. Respondent may not collect the $544.78 from Petitioner.
David I. Brochstein Administrative Judge