In the Matter of the Petition by ) January 15, 1997
)
ROBERT L. BURKETT )
1042 Lask Drive )
)
at )
)
Flint, MI 48532-3631 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-22
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Robert L. Burkett
1042 Lask Drive
Flint, MI 48532-3631
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Douglas M. Warner
Post Office Box 999401
Grand Rapids, MI 49599-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Robert L. Burkett, filed a petition for a hearing based solely on written submissions regarding the Postal Service's collection of $420 from his salary to recoup a salary advance.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On April 7, 1995, Petitioner received a salary advance in the amount of $420. Section 857 of Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, provides that salary advances are to be repaid upon receipt of the employee's next biweekly paycheck. However, Petitioner's net pay went directly to his bank, precluding the post office from holding his paycheck to effect collection, and Petitioner did not otherwise promptly repay the advance.
2. In a letter dated July 13, 1995, Petitioner's postmaster demanded repayment of the advance and advised Petitioner that if he did not repay the advance by July 19, collection would be effected by canceling his net-to-bank designation and holding his next paycheck at the post office until the debt was paid.
3. On July 28, 1995, Respondent held Petitioner's paycheck, and Petitioner repaid the $420.
4. On or about July 26, Petitioner sent a petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act to the Recorder. The petition was received by the Recorder on August 4, 1995, and docketed as Postal Service Docket No. DCA 95-263.
5. Respondent subsequently withdrew its July 13, 1995 demand for repayment, and, on September 11, 1995, issued Petitioner a money order in the amount of $420 to restore the funds it had obtained from Petitioner on July 28. Docket No. DCA 95-263 was dismissed on September 19, 1995.
6. Without Petitioner's consent and without first issuing a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, Respondent deducted a total of $420 from Petitioner's salary over pay periods 25/95, 26/95 and 1/96.
7. On January 16, 1996, Petitioner filed his petition in this matter, Docket No. DCA 96-22, but the petition was dismissed on March 12, 1996, because Petitioner had not been issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. The hearing official stated that such Notice was required before deductions could be made from an employee's salary to satisfy a debt claimed by Respondent. He directed Respondent to return the $420 to Petitioner, but Respondent failed to do so.
8. After the case was reassigned to me, I directed Respondent to restore the $420 to Petitioner in compliance with the March 12 Order. I advised that if Respondent failed to do so, Petitioner could request a hearing as authorized under the Debt Collection Act as if a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets had been issued.
9. Respondent did not return the withheld funds, and, by Order dated November 20, 1996, I established a schedule for written submissions in support of the parties' positions. Neither party requested an oral hearing and neither submitted any further evidence or argument in response to that Order. The matter is now ready for decision.
DECISION
Petitioner correctly contends that Respondent failed to follow the procedures set forth in its own regulations to effect the collection. Respondent made deductions from Petitioner's pay in late 1995 and early 1996 without Petitioner's consent and without first issuing Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (Finding 6).(1) Such Notice is required by Parts 450 and 460 of Respondent's Employee and Labor Relations Handbook before deductions are made from an employee's salary for a debt claimed by Respondent. Additionally, Respondent disregarded direct instructions from the hearing official to restore the funds to Petitioner until it issued such Notice.
Nevertheless, Respondent's actions did not extinguish Petitioner's responsibility for repayment of the salary advance. Petitioner does not deny that he was obligated to repay the $420 he received by way of salary advance in April of 1995, and there is no basis in the record for finding otherwise. Postal Service regulations contemplate prompt repayment of salary advances, but recovery in this case was complicated by Petitioner's net-to-bank pay status and his failure to repay the advance, apparently because he felt certain procedural steps had been skipped by his post office. Whether the proper procedures were followed or not, the money is now held by the party undisputedly entitled to it. Therefore, while not condoning Respondent's procedural failures and flagrant disregard of the orders of the hearing official, I conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to return of the money or other relief in this proceeding.
The petition is denied.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge