United States Postal Service(TM)
Administrative Law Judges 


In the Matter of the Petition by  	) May 22, 1997
                                  	) 
BEVERLY M. DENNIS                 	) 
528 Clubhouse Way                 	) 
                                  	) 
at	                          	) 
                                 	) 
Culpepper, VA 22701­4213	  	) P.S. Docket No. DCA 97­107 
 
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 	 	Beverly M. Dennis 
		                  	528 Clubhouse Way 
				  	Culpepper, VA 22701­4213 
 
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 	  	Julia A. Bills 
				  	Senior Labor Relations Specialist 
				  	United States Postal Service  
				  	900 Brentwood Rd. N.E. 
				  	Washington, DC 20066-7602


FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Beverly Dennis, a supervisor at Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, filed this Petition on March 27, 1997, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her District Manager, Harry B. Smith, dated March 12, 1997. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $2,452.98 from Petitioner's salary. A Letter of Demand, dated July 8, 1996, stated that this withholding is to cover a shortage in a vending machine account at the State Department Post Office. The Petition asked for a hearing on written submissions.

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer on April 11, 1997. Both parties were given until May 5, 1997 to submit any additional evidence they wished to have considered, and until May 15, 1997 to submit final arguments or comments. Respondent filed sworn statements from Harry Smith and Robert Dorsey, and Petitioner filed some additional documents and comments. All these materials have been considered. From the information in this case file, very few facts are clear.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On November 8, 1995, Robert Dorsey, a Financial Auditor for the Capital District, performed an audit of the State Department Post Office. Ms. Dennis was the "manager" of that station.

2. Mr. Dorsey discovered stock "in a box lying on the floor beside a cabinet." This stock was counted and found to total $3,000.38. A PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, was signed by Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Dennis, showing an opening balance of $5,398.41, for a shortage of $2,398.03. According to Mr. Dorsey, Ms. Dennis told him this stock was vending machine stock. (Dorsey affidavit, May 1, 1997).

Contentions of the Parties

Respondent's position is simply that Petitioner, as a supervisor at the State Department Station, is responsible for any financial shortages that are found there.

Petitioner argues that she was never assigned accountability for a vending machine at the State Department, that the machine was located somewhere other than in the post office, that she had no key to the machine, and that she never serviced the machine. She also states that, during the course of this proceeding, she requested copies of any records pertaining to the machine and none were provided.

DECISION

Respondent's case against Petitioner fails for two reasons. First, part of Respondent's burden of proof is to show that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. There is no evidence to show that Petitioner was accountable for the vending machine. In light of Petitioner's insistence that she was not, the mere fact that she was the station manager is not sufficient to prove that she was. Second, the standard of liability for losses from vending machines, unlike losses from main stock or clerk credits, is not a strict liability standard. It requires evidence of negligence or wrongdoing by the employee. Postal Service Handbook PO-102, Retail Vending Operational and Marketing Program (January 30, 1990), Section 653.12 states:

.12 Other Causes. Servicing personnel do not have complete personal control at all times for the assigned credit, therefore, shortages must be assumed to be the result of machine malfunction unless the following can be determined as the cause:

a. Fire, theft, robbery, errors in examination procedures, errors on Forms 17, customer refunds, acceptance of bogus and/or foreign coin-like and bill-like objects, or any other procedural errors.

b. It can be established that the loss was the direct result of negligence on the part of the servicing personnel.

c. Theft, embezzlement, etc., by the servicing person (sufficient evidence to prefer charges).

Even assuming that Petitioner had been identified as the servicing person, there is no evidence of theft or embezzlement by Ms. Dennis, or that the shortage was the direct result of her negligence. Therefore, she cannot be held liable. Linda A. Lilly, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-195 (October 31, 1996); Craig A. Wilson, P.S. Docket No. DCA 94-153 (February 21, 1995).

CONCLUSION

The Petition is granted. Petitioner is not liable to the Postal Service for this shortage of $2,398.03. 


						Bruce R. Houston
						Chief Administrative Law Judge
1 Respondent’s Answer notes that the correct amount should be $2,398.03, based on a PS Form 3294 for a stock count done on November 8, 1995. There is nothing in the case file to show the origin of the figure $2,452.98.

2 If the auditors did not know what this box of stock represented, it is unclear how they knew it should have contained $5,398.41.