In the Matter of the Petition by)	August 26, 1997
				)
LAVERNE BAPTIST			)
3209 Dynasty Drive		)
				)
	at			)
				)
Forestville, MD  20747-3856	)	P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-102

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:	Carlos A. Wharry
				Baltimore District Coordinator
				National League of Postmasters
				515 S. Camp Meade Road
				Linthicum, MD 21090-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:	Julia A. Bills
				Labor Relations Specialist
				United States Postal Service
				900 Brentwood Road, NE
				Washington, DC 20066-7602

Petitioner has filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the June 24, 1997 Decision in this petition. Although offered an opportunity to reply to the motion, Respondent has not filed a response.

In the Decision, I determined that Petitioner was liable for the net shortage of $3,960.31 found in the accounts in her post office, but that she should not be held liable for a $5,190.60 shortage allegedly resulting from failing to account for various stamp shipments to her post office.

In her motion Petitioner challenges Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 4 and 6. However, in doing so, Petitioner raises the same arguments she presented in her petition and at the hearing in this matter.

Finding of Fact No. 1 of the Decision found that an audit of Petitioner's accountability disclosed a shortage of $15,164.41. Petitioner once again asserts that proper Postal Service procedures were not followed during the audit of Petitioner's accountability. Nevertheless, Petitioner signed the audit document, thereby contemporaneously evidencing her agreement with its findings. Furthermore, Petitioner did not offer any evidence challenging the accuracy of the shortage disclosed by the audit.

In challenging Finding of Fact No. 4, Petitioner again raises a procedural irregularity with respect to a stamp shipment in December 1994 (the Form 17 did not accompany the stamp shipment, but was sent some 10 days later). However, Petitioner has once again failed to establish how this irregularity in any way relates to the shortage she is charged with. Furthermore, Finding of Fact No. 4 supported the Decision's conclusion that Petitioner should not be held liable for the alleged $5,190.60 loss of stamp shipments to her post office.

Finally, Petitioner challenges Finding of Fact No. 6, which found that Petitioner was not provided documents concerning an audit of the Stamp Distribution Office. This finding also supported the Decision's conclusion that Petitioner should not be charged with a loss of $5,190.60 of stamp shipments to her post office. Neither Finding No. 4 nor No. 6 was related to the Decision's conclusion that Petitioner was responsible for the net loss of $3,960.31 found in the various accounts of the employees at her post office.

Accordingly, having once again reviewed the issues raised by Petitioner in her motion, I affirm the Final Decision as it was issued. Petitioner is liable to repay $3, 960.31 to the Postal Service.

					William K. Mahn
					Administrative Judge