In the Matter of the Petition by	)  July 22, 1998
					)
ESTEBAN A. SOTUYO			)
P. O. Box 1133				)
					)
	at				)
					)
Provo, UT  84604-1133			)  P.S. Docket No. AO 97-104

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Esteban A. Sotuyo
					P.O. Box 1133
					Provo, UT 84604-1133

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Paul D. Salazar
					Frank W. Taylor
					United States Postal Service
					1760 West 2100 South
					Salt Lake City, UT 84199-9401

Petitioner, Esteban A. Sotuyo, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge, which holds that Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $6,673.72.

Petitioner has not contested that he is indebted to the Postal Service for the amount determined by the Administrative Law Judge to be due and owing. However, on appeal he requests that repayment of that amount be deferred until September, 1998 so that his appeal of a Merit System Protection Board decision upholding his separation from the Postal Service can be decided by the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Petitioner also contends on appeal that collection of the debt before September, 1998 would cause a hardship due to additional financial obligations he has incurred since the Initial Decision and his inability to find new employment.

Although the record clearly establishes that Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service, the Judicial Officer has determined to exercise his discretion to grant partial review of the Initial decision in order to clarify the authority of the Judicial Officer and the Hearing Official in administrative offset proceedings to order a delay in the collection of a debt from a former employee. The presiding Administrative Law Judge held in the Initial Decision that Petitioner's request for postponement of collection actions until after the District Court's decision was beyond the scope of 39 C.F.R. Part 966. However, determining when a offset should begin is inherent in the authority of the Judicial Officer and the Hearing Official to revise the administrative offset schedule proposed for collecting a debt.¹  Thus postponement of the offset schedule proposed by the Postal Service is not beyond the scope of this proceeding.

In his notice of appeal, Petitioner has renewed his request to delay the collection of the debt until after the District Court issues its decision, but he has not shown that he is likely to prevail on the merits in the pending court proceeding, that postponement of the debt is otherwise appropriate, or that the proposed repayment schedule is unreasonable. Additionally, Petitioner has not established that the proposed repayment schedule should be modified because of his new financial obligations or his inability to find employment. Petitioner has had the use of the Postal Service funds for a substantial period of time and any additional debts he has chosen to incur are not a reason for revising or deferring the monthly repayment schedule.²  Moreover, Petition has not shown that he has attempted to obtain additional employment, that he is unemployable because of health or age, or that any other reason exists to support a deferral or revision of the repayment schedule.

Accordingly, Petitioner's appeal is denied and Respondent may begin to collect $6,673.72 from Petitioner's retirement annuity at the proposed installment rate.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer