In the Matter of the Petition by ) March 6, 1998
)
DENNIS J. HAMPTON )
P.O. Box 9998 )
)
at )
)
Donnelly, ID 83615-9998 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-36
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Daniel J. Bosse
1223 S. Lynn Street
Moscow, ID 83843-3910
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey S. Winberry
United States Postal Service
770 S. 13th Street
Boise, ID 83708-9402
Petitioner, Dennis Hampton, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated December 26, 1997. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $612.86 from Mr. Hampton's salary to cover a shortage in his account discovered during an audit on June 18, 1997.
Petitioner requested a decision on written submissions. After Respondent filed its Answer, the parties were given until February 23, 1998 to submit additional evidence and arguments, and until March 2, 1998 to submit rebuttal. Neither party filed anything by February 23. Neither party has submitted any sworn witness statements. The following findings of fact are based on the materials submitted with the Petition and the Answer.
1. Petitioner has been a postal employee since 1973. From 1983 to 1993 he was a supervisor of mail processing at the Boise, Idaho General Mail Facility. He was appointed Postmaster at Donnelly, Idaho in May 1993. (Petition)
2. The only formal training Petitioner received after becoming postmaster was three days of in-office training from the postmaster of a neighboring community, and one Annual Postmaster Training session held in 1994. (Petition)
3. In addition to having his own flexible credit account, Petitioner is the custodian of the main stock at the Donnelly Post Office. (Rx-1; Rx-4)
4. A financial audit of the Donnelly Post Office was conducted by the Postal Inspection Service on August 11, 1994. The audit report stated that, "There was a breakdown in the administration of stamp accountabilities . . . because internal controls were not being properly maintained." The audit found that Mr. Hampton's flexible credit had a $523.25 overage, but that the main stock had a $375.12 shortage. The report recommended, among other things, that separate folders be kept for each accountability, and that a master list be maintained, and re-capped daily, for the main stock . (Rx-1)
5. Shortly after this audit, Petitioner sent a memorandum to his Manager, Post Office Operations, stating that he had implemented the recommendations made in the audit report. (Rx-3)
6. Petitioner's post office was next audited on June 18, 1997, by a representative from the Spokane, Washington District Office. This audit disclosed an overage of $128.51 in Petitioner's flexible credit, and a shortage of $1430.51 in the main stock, for a net shortage of $1302.00. Various other overages were subsequently credited, leaving the shortage of $612.86 that has been charged to Petitioner in this case. (Rx-4)
7. The June 18, 1997 audit also disclosed that Petitioner had not been keeping the required documentation (PS Forms 3295, 3958, and 3959) to record all daily transactions in the main stock. (Rx-4)
The standard for determining an employee's liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 141. Respondent's burden of proof is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. The burden then shifts to Petitioner to show that he followed established procedures, or that he should be relieved of liability for some other reason. In this case, Petitioner does not dispute that there was a loss of $612.86 from the main stock at the Donnelly Post Office, nor does he dispute the fact that he is the custodian of that stock. His defense is that he was never adequately trained in performing the financial duties of a postmaster. He also argues that the delay in issuing him a Letter of Demand for payment of the alleged debt (from July to November 1997) is a basis for relieving him of any obligation to pay it.
Respondent argues that Petitioner received the same training as other postmasters, and that this was sufficient to make him aware of his responsibilities and of the proper procedures. Respondent also argues that the 1994 audit, and Petitioner's responses to that audit, demonstrate that he knew what needed to be done to properly maintain his accounts. Finally, Respondent argues that the findings of the 1997 audit demonstrate that Petitioner did not follow through in carrying out the recommendations of the 1994 audit report.
In the Petition, Petitioner's representative states, "Mr. Hampton's failure to count clerk credits as required, his failure to count the main stock as required, his failure to maintain PS Form 3295 on all vault transactions as required, and his failure to maintain PS Forms 3958 and 3959 as required point out the fact that his training was deficient and lacking in his financial duties as a Postmaster." In light of this concession that Mr. Hampton did not follow established procedures, the only issue to be resolved is whether his training was so inadequate that he should be relieved of liability. Respondent's argument that Petitioner received the same training as other postmasters cannot be considered, because there is no evidence of record as to what that training is. However, Petitioner acknowledges that he had three days of in-office training, plus one other training session, and the other evidence that is available demonstrates that Petitioner was sufficiently aware of procedures and responsibilities in handling the stock assigned to him. Specifically, some of the relevant deficiencies noted in the 1997 audit are the same as were noted in 1994. He knew he was required to maintain separate records for each accountability, and that he should keep written records of daily transactions in the main stock, but he failed to do so. To argue that his failure to follow required procedures proves he was not trained is circular reasoning, and in light of the evidence concerning the two audit reports, it is not persuasive. It is also significant that it was nearly three years between the two audits and there is no evidence that Petitioner ever asked for additional training, or ever complained to his superiors that he did not understand his responsibilities.
As to the delay in giving Petitioner the Letter of Demand, I do not find the delay in this case to be unduly long, or that Petitioner was in any way harmed by the delay. It is not a basis for relieving him of liability.
The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $612.86 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge