Appeal of SHIRLEY K. HODGERS - P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-65

In the Matter of the Petition by 	) May 6, 1998
					)
SHIRLEY K. HODGERS 			)
915 W. North Street 			)
					)
	at 				)
					)
Lima, OH  45805-2457 			) P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-65


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		Farley K. Banks, Esq.
					P.O. Box 363
  					Lima, OH 45802-0363


APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		David A. Jones
  					Senior Labor Relations Specialist
  					United States Postal Service
  					1591 Dalton Avenue, Room 206-T
  					Cincinnati, OH 45234-9406

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Shirley K. Hodgers, filed a timely Petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on or about January 26, 1998. The Notice advised Petitioner that she was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $667.81, resulting from a shortage detected during an October 1997 audit of the credit she maintained as a window clerk at the Lima, Ohio Main Post Office. As requested by Petitioner, this decision is being made based solely on written submittals.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Main Post Office in Lima, Ohio. On October 8, 1997, she failed to remove her cash/stamp drawer from the counterline and lock it in the safe at the end of the day, as it was the normal practice to do. The drawer remained unlocked in the counterline overnight. At approximately 9:00 a.m. the next day (October 9), the drawer was sealed in place by a window technician who had been informed of the unlocked drawer upon his arrival at work. The window technician used an Express Mail label as a seal because he did not know the location of any official seals and believed the label would serve the same purpose. (Declaration of Claude R. Paxton; Declaration of Emerson Joseph).

2. Petitioner did not work on October 9 and the drawer remained sealed with the Express Mail label until she arrived for work on October 10 (Paxton declaration; Petition). The record contains no evidence the drawer was opened or tampered with during the time Petitioner was not present.

3. On October 15, 1997, Petitioner's credit was subjected to its regular audit which revealed a shortage in the amount of $667.81. Petitioner signed the audit form, agreeing to the accuracy of the count. (Answer, Exhibits 3, 9).

4. On or about October 17, 1997, Petitioner was given a Letter of Demand for the amount of the shortage. On or about October 28, 1997, Petitioner filed a Step 1 grievance, which was denied by management on October 31, 1997. (Answer, Exhibits 1, 4). The grievance was not carried beyond that point (Petitioner's Supplemental Evidence, ¶5).

5. Respondent issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner on or about January 26, 1998, thus precipitating her Petition (Answer, Exhibit 2).

6. Under paragraph 141 of the F-1 Handbook, Post Office Accounting Procedures, employees to whom accountable paper and funds have been consigned are held strictly accountable for any loss "unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." (Answer, Exhibit 7).

DECISION

In order to establish a prima facie case, Respondent must demonstrate that there has been a loss from an accountability for which Petitioner was responsible. In this matter, that fact is not in dispute. Petitioner does not deny that there has been a loss and does not deny responsibility for the stamp/cash credit from which the loss occurred.

Under the standards established by the F-1 Handbook (Finding 6), to avoid liability for such a loss, Petitioner must establish that she followed postal procedures when performing her duties. At least with respect to the incident described above, i.e., when she left her stamp/cash drawer unlocked in the counterline, Petitioner concedes that she did not follow those procedures.

Petitioner argues, however, that she should be at least partially relieved from responsibility for the loss because of the failure of other employees and Petitioner's supervisor to better protect the drawer and its contents, once it was discovered unlocked on October 9, her day off. Notwithstanding Petitioner's argument, the action taken by the window technician in sealing the drawer with an Express Mail label was reasonable under the circumstances. While there may have been other steps that could have been taken, the measure that was applied was acceptable and was, in view of the lack of any evidence of tampering, effective.

Further, Petitioner's argument assumes that the loss detected in the audit was caused by theft during the time the drawer was sealed, but unlocked. However, as noted above, there is no evidence that the drawer was tampered with during this time. The window technician's declaration asserting that the drawer remained sealed from the time he applied the Express Mail label until the next morning, when Petitioner arrived for work, is unchallenged. The mere possibility that such pilferage could have occurred is insufficient to conclude that it did or that it was the cause of the shortage found during the audit.

Accordingly, I conclude that Petitioner has not shown that she should be excused from repaying the shortage with which she has been charged. The Petition is denied.

					David I. Brochstein
					Administrative Judge