In the Matter of the Petition by ) January 15, 1997 ) LOVETTA V. W. BROWN ) 5142 Pawnee Drive ) ) at ) ) Antioch, CA 94509-8437 ) P. S. Docket No. DCA 96-220 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Lovetta V. W. Brown 5142 Pawnee Drive Antioch, CA 94509-8437 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jane L. Davis United States Postal Service 1675 7th Street Oakland, CA 94516-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Respondent has filed a request that the petition be dismissed, contending that the amount of the alleged debt was deducted from Petitioner's retirement refund pursuant to Petitioner's written authorization. For purposes of addressing this request, the following facts are found based on the submissions to date.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On June 13, 1996, Respondent issued Petitioner, at that time a Postal Service employee, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets regarding an alleged debt of $87.10, "based on Health Benefits." Petitioner filed a timely petition for a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961, and the matter was docketed on June 27.
2. On or about June 29, 1996, Petitioner resigned from the Postal Service and requested that her retirement contributions be reimbursed to her.
3. Before Respondent would process Petitioner's request for a lump-sum reimbursement of her retirement contributions, it required her to sign a document purporting to authorize deduction of monies Respondent claimed it was owed, including the $87.10 at issue in this proceeding.
4. Petitioner signed the authorization, and she was thereafter issued a check for the refund of her retirement contributions less monies claimed by Respondent, including the $87.10.
DECISION
The purpose of a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961 is to determine whether an employee is liable to Respondent and whether and at what rate Respondent may make deductions from the employee's current pay in order to satisfy the debt. 5 U.S.C. §5514; 39 C.F.R. §§ 961.2, 961.3(a), 961.8(g); Employee and Labor Relations Manual 450 and 460. Respondent did not withhold from Petitioner's current pay and does not intend to do so. Because Petitioner resigned, there will be no pay owed her in the future, as things stand now.(1) Therefore, the procedures set forth in 39 C.F.R. Part 961, which implement Section 5 of the Debt Collection Act, are inapplicable, see Comp. Gen. Dec. B-217274, September 30, 1985, 64 Comp. Gen. 907, and the petition filed under 39 C.F.R. Part 961 is subject to dismissal.
However, Respondent has established regulations applicable to administrative offsets that afford former employees an opportunity to request a hearing to challenge Respondent's collection of an alleged debt by deduction from funds owed the employee by Respondent or the United States. See 39 C.F.R. Part 966. Petitioner appears to fall within the scope of those rules.
Part 966 contemplates that before collecting an alleged debt from funds otherwise due an employee, Respondent will assert a claim for the alleged debt and provide the former employee an opportunity to request reconsideration. If reconsideration is denied, the former employee may then petition for a hearing regarding the debt. 39 C.F.R. §§ 966.3, 966.4, 966.5. In this case, because she resigned, Appellant was not afforded the hearing she requested under Part 961, and there is no evidence she was ever offered the opportunity to request a hearing under Part 966. Instead, the amount of the debt was simply deducted from her retirement account refund.
An employee may be entitled to a hearing under Part 961 where Respondent fails to follow its procedures for collection of alleged debts from employees and begins collection from salary without offering the employee an opportunity to request a hearing. Johnny Jones, P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-261, October 11, 1995. Such actions have been considered the equivalent of issuance of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. Id. I see no reason to treat former employees differently. Therefore, the deduction of Respondent's claimed debt from Petitioner's retirement refund satisfies the preliminary procedural requirements of Part 966, and Petitioner is entitled to request a hearing pursuant to 39 C.F.R. Part 966 regarding the validity of the alleged debt of $87.10.(2) See Judy A. Suarez, P.S. Docket No. DCA-176, September 21, 1993.
Accordingly, Postal Service Docket No. DCA 96-220 is dismissed. This matter is redocketed as Postal Service Docket No. AO 97-30.(3) Any correspondence or filings relating to this matter should bear the AO 97-30 reference. Respondent is to file its answer addressing the bases for the debt within 30 days after it receives this Order.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge
2. Respondent's argument that the petition should be dismissed because collection from Petitioner's retirement refund was made pursuant to Petitioner's written authorization is rejected. The written authorization Respondent relies on is not in the record. Additionally, there is some question about the voluntariness of an "authorization" Petitioner executed because Respondent would not process her request for a refund of her retirement contributions unless she did so. On this record, I cannot find that Petitioner has waived her right to request a hearing regarding the alleged debt.
3. With this decision, the parties are being provided copies of 39 C.F.R. Part 966, Rules of Practice.