Appeal of P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-267 -- CARRIE M. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judges

In the Matter of the Petition by	)	September 18, 1997
					)
CARRIE M. DAVIS				)
P.O. Box 292				)
					)
        at				)
					)
Kake, AK 99830-0292			)	P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-267


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Dwight L. Stampflee
					P.O. Box 5143
					Ketchikan, AK  99901-0143

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		William Pfund
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					3201 C Street, Suite 506
					Anchorage, AK  99503-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Carrie M. Davis, 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 $7,084.95 from her salary based on a burglary loss at the Kake, Alaska Post Office at which she is postmaster.

Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions, and the parties were afforded an opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument in support of their positions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the postmaster of the Kake, Alaska Post Office (August 29, 1997 Affidavit of Bob Churchill; Petitioner's Exhibit ("PX") 4, p. 1⁽¹⁾).

2. On the afternoon of December 5, 1996, Petitioner prepared the bank deposit of the daily receipts of the post office. She counted the cash and tallied the checks, completed the deposit forms and placed everything in an envelope which she intended to send to the bank by registered mail with the morning dispatch. The envelope contained checks totaling $1,464.95 and $5,620.00 in cash, for a total value of $7,084.95. (PX 1, p. 1 and Exhibit 1).

3. Petitioner placed the envelope containing the deposit in the office safe, but she failed to spin the safe's combination dial to lock the safe (PX 4, p. 1 and Exhibit 1; August 29, 1997 Affidavit of Bob Churchill). She locked the post office and left at about 5:30 p.m. (PX 4, p. 1).

4. At some time between Petitioner's closing of the post office on December 5 and about 8:20 a.m. on December 6, 1996, someone broke into the Kake Post Office. Entry was obtained by breaking a window in the lobby and prying away the security screen at the counter. (PX 4, p. 1 and Exhibit 1).

5. Petitioner discovered the break-in when she arrived at the post office at 8:20 a.m. on December 6. There was no sign of forced entry into the safe, and Petitioner opened the safe without using the combination by simply lifting the latch. The envelope containing the previous day's receipts had been stolen. (PX 4, p. 1 and Exhibit 1). The thief has not been apprehended, and the deposit was never recovered (PX 4; Petition).

6. Postal funds kept overnight in the post office were to be locked in the safe (See PX 1, p. 1 and Exhibit 1; Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 371.1).

7. When locking the safe, employees were instructed by Postal Service procedures to "[t]urn the combination knob . . . four complete turns in the same direction to preclude it being closed on 'day lock.'" (See PX 1, p. 1 and Exhibit 1; Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 372.6).

8. Postmasters are held strictly liable for loss of funds for which they are responsible unless the evidence shows that the postmaster enforced Postal Service policies and procedures in managing the post office (Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 14).

9. Whenever a bank deposit is lost or destroyed before it reaches the bank, the post office is to contact customers whose checks to the Postal Service were included in the lost deposit and ask them to issue replacement checks (Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 333.4). Petitioner has begun this process (March 27, 1997 letter from Dwight L. Stampflee).

10. In a March 11, 1997 letter, Respondent asserted a claim for $7,084.95 against Petitioner (PX 1). Petitioner requested reconsideration (PX 2), but the request was denied (PX 3). On July 7, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets under the Debt Collection Act stating its intention to collect the amount of $7,084.95 from Petitioner's salary (PX 3). Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Hearing Under the Debt Collection Act.

DECISION

Respondent argues that Petitioner is liable for the full amount of the lost deposit because it was her failure to lock the safe that allowed the theft to occur. Petitioner argues that she should not be held liable for the burglary loss because it was only through the illegal acts of a third party beyond her control that the post office was entered and the deposit taken.

Respondent's policies and procedures required Petitioner to lock the deposit in the safe (Finding 6), and spinning the combination dial after placing the deposit in the safe was required to complete the locking procedure (Finding 7). Petitioner did

not do so.⁽²⁾ Although Petitioner locked the post office, she failed to complete the steps necessary to lock the safe (Finding 3) and minimize the chance of loss if a burglar were to gain entry to the post office. That failure enabled the thief to take the bank deposit that would probably have been inaccessible if the safe had been locked. Accordingly, Petitioner is liable for the full amount of the loss. However, she is entitled to credit for any of the lost checks that are replaced by the makers.

The Petition is denied.

						Norman D. Menegat
						Administrative Judge

1. The February 26, 1997 Investigative Memorandum is Petitioner's Exhibit 4 and is also attached to Respondent's Answer as Respondent's Exhibit 1.

2. In her formal statement given to the postal inspector on December 7, 1996, Petitioner said she could not remember whether she had spun the dial to complete the locking procedure. However, in separate conversations with the inspector and with her immediate supervisor on December 6, Petitioner admitted that she had not locked the safe. These statements, not contradicted in this proceeding by Petitioner, the absence of evidence of forced entry to the safe, and the fact that Petitioner opened the safe the next day by just lifting the latch indicate that Petitioner did not lock the safe before she left the post office on the evening of September 5. There is no suggestion that the combination to the safe had been compromised.