In the Matter of the Petition by ) February 11, 1997 ) GERALD USATCH ) 3951-D Cocoplum Circle ) ) at ) ) Coconut Creek, FL 33063-5952 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-406 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Usatch 3951-D Cocoplum Circle Coconut Creek, FL 33063-5952 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Odessa Horne Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 1900 West Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33310-9998
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Gerald Usatch, a window clerk in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, filed a petition requesting a hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service. The Notice informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to deduct a total of $99.46 from his salary to make up a shortage discovered in Petitioner’s accountability in a November 1995 audit.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. The parties were afforded an opportunity to add to the material they filed with the petition and answer, but neither did so.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On November 29, 1995, Petitioner’s accountability of stamp stock and cash was counted, and a shortage of $99.46 was discovered.
2. Postal Service employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, Section 132.
3. Section 362.63 of Handbook F-1 requires that combinations to safes and vaults used for storage of stamp stock be changed when "a person knowing a combination of a safe or vault is separated or transferred to a new position." Petitioner’s post office did not always follow this requirement, and in September 1995, management did not change the combination to the vault when a supervisor who knew the combination transferred.
4. The envelopes holding the spare keys to the locked compartments in the vault in which Petitioner stored his stock were not compromised, and only he had access to those compartments.
5. Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand on November 29, 1995, and a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on November 13, 1996. Petitioner filed his petition for hearing in response to the latter.
DECISION
Respondent argues that it has shown that a shortage of $99.46 existed in Petitioner’s credit and that, therefore, Petitioner is responsible for repayment of that amount. Petitioner argues that he is not liable for the shortage because Respondent failed to provide adequate security for his credit by failing to change the combination to the vault when employees who knew the combination moved to other jobs. Petitioner identified one such failure to change the combination that occurred in September 1995. Additionally, Petitioner alleges that it is the practice of his management to issue employees Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, even when it cannot prove the existence of a debt, to intimidate employees into paying. According to Petitioner, management rescinds the Notice if the employee does not pay.
There is no question that there was a shortage of $99.46 in the stock for which Petitioner was accountable. He does not dispute that. Therefore, under the liability provision quoted above, Petitioner will be strictly accountable for the loss unless evidence establishes that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties (Finding 2). It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that he exercised reasonable care. In this proceeding, Petitioner has provided no information whatsoever addressing whether he exercised reasonable care in performing his duties. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof, and he will be held strictly accountable for the loss unless Respondent’s failure to change the vault combination and alleged management practices relating to debt collection relieve him from liability.
Although Respondent’s failure to change the vault combination when the former supervisor left (and perhaps on other occasions as generally alleged by Petitioner) may have violated security standards, that failure has not been shown to have had any bearing on Petitioner’s shortage. Petitioner has not suggested that the former supervisor or anyone else had access to his stock, which was apparently maintained in the vault in locked compartments that only he had access to, and Respondent submitted evidence showing that the security of Petitioner’s compartments in the vault had not been compromised (Finding 4). Therefore, Respondent’s failure to change the vault combination does not relieve Petitioner of liability for the shortage.
Petitioner did not support his allegations that management issued unprovable debt claims against employees to intimidate them. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown how such a practice would bear on his liability for a shortage in his credit, a shortage that he does not dispute.
The petition is denied.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge