In the Matter of the Petition by		)  January 21, 1997
						)
GLEN A. ANDERSON 				)
2291 Helmo Ct. N. 				)
						)
	at 					)
						)
Oakdale, MN  55128-5011 			)  P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-395


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 			Glen A. Anderson
						2291 Helmo Ct. N
						Oakdale, MN  55128-5011

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 			Thomas P. Geren
						Labor Relations Specialist
						United States Postal Service
						100 South First Street, Room 423
						Minneapolis, MN  55401-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Respondent, United States Postal Service, issued Petitioner, Glen A. Anderson, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets regarding a claim against Petitioner, and Petitioner filed a petition for a hearing on written submissions under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a). After Respondent filed its answer, the parties were afforded an opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument, but neither did. A January 14, 1997 telephone conference between the undersigned and the parties confirmed that neither party wished to submit anything further, and the parties were advised that the matter was ready for decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. From 1991 through at least 1995, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Como Finance Station in St. Paul, Minnesota.

2. While the station was closed over the weekend of September 30, 1995, someone broke in and robbed the Station. The safe was not opened, but a locked drawer in the station’s front counterline containing part of Petitioner’s stamp stock was forced open and its contents taken.

3. An October 3, 1995 count of Petitioner’s credit revealed a shortage of $7,626.98.

4. When Petitioner first assumed his duties as a window clerk at Como Station in 1991, the then-station manager assigned him one drawer in the station’s safe and told him to store stamp stock that would not fit in that drawer in a locked drawer in the front counter. Petitioner’s credit had been audited by management several times since 1991, and through those audits his managers had become aware that he was storing stock in the front counter and never advised him that that practice was improper. At the time of the burglary, not all of Petitioner’s stock would fit in the space assigned for his use in the safe.

5. On October 29, 1996, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets asserting a claim of $5,720.23, and Petitioner filed a timely petition challenging the collection.

6. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, provides that employees who have been assigned custody of stamp stock "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Handbook F-1, Section 132.

DECISION

Respondent has not stated directly its position in this matter, but from documents in the record, it is apparent that Respondent believes that Petitioner failed to act with reasonable care when he stored stamp stock in the locked drawer in the counter instead of the safe. Petitioner argues that he was instructed to do so by his former manager, that other managers were aware of his practice and never advised him that it was wrong, and that Respondent did not provide him sufficient space in the safe to store all the stock he was assigned. He argues that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties.

Neither party disputes that there was a shortage of $7,626.98 in Petitioner’s credit, and both assume that the shortage resulted from the theft of stock in roughly that amount from the counterline where Petitioner had stored it. There is no dispute, therefore, that Respondent suffered a loss in the amount of $7,626.98.

However, Petitioner will not be held liable for the loss if he demonstrates that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties. In his petition, Petitioner stated that he exercised reasonable care in accounting for and securing his stamp stock, and Respondent does not contest that assertion except as to the storage of stock in the counterline. The evidence in the record supports Petitioner’s position.

Based on Petitioner’s statement, I have concluded that there was insufficient space provided Petitioner in the safe for storage of all his stock (Finding 4). The postal inspector who investigated the loss concluded that Petitioner violated Postal Service requirements by storing stock in the counterline. However, the inspector’s memorandum does not directly state that there was adequate space available to Petitioner in the safe for all of his stamp stock. The investigative memorandum states only that a more secure container--the safe--was available. It does not address what space would be required to store in excess of $7,500 worth of stamps or what space in the safe was actually available for Petitioner’s use.

Petitioner’s statements that he was instructed to use the counterline drawer for storage of stock and that management knew of his practice and did not advise him that it was improper were made in his petition, and Respondent has not contradicted those statements. Respondent has not overcome Petitioner’s evidence that, under the circumstances of this case, storage of the stock in the counterline did not constitute a lack of reasonable care. As Respondent does not assert that Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties in any other way and Petitioner has presented evidence that he exercised reasonable care in the performance of his duties, I find that he is not liable for the loss.

The petition is granted.

						Norman D. Menegat
						Administrative Judge