In the Matter of the Petition by ) June 30, 1999 ) TERRY D. HOWARD ) 618 S. 28 Avenue ) ) at ) ) Hollywood, FL 33020-4702 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-182 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Terry D. Howard 618 S. 28 Avenue Hollywood, FL 33020-4702 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph R. Berezo Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 2200 NW 72nd Avenue, #212 Miami, FL 33152-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Terry D. Howard, filed a timely Petition for 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. The Notice advised Petitioner that the Postal Service intended to make deductions from his salary to recover a salary overpayment of $417.61.
At Petitioner’s request, the hearing was based solely on written submissions. Both parties submitted documentary evidence and argument in support of their positions. The following findings of fact are based on the materials submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a rural carrier assigned to the Sunset Branch of the Miami, Florida Post Office (Petition).
2. A rural carrier’s pay is based on the classification of his route, which is determined by a number of factors, including the number of individual customer boxes on the route, the number of centralized boxes and the length of the route (See Declaration of Greg Kimball ("Kimball Decl."); Rural Route Interim Evaluation Worksheet ("Worksheet")).
3. Effective August 15, 1998, part of Petitioner’s delivery territory was transferred to another carrier, reducing the length of Petitioner’s route and the number of regular and centralized boxes served by his route. These changes, along with the resulting reduction of the hours per week attributed to the route, were calculated on a Rural Route Interim Evaluation Worksheet, which became the basis for the adjustment. Petitioner signed the Worksheet on August 13, 1998, acknowledging the adjustment. (Official Rural Route Description; Kimball Decl.; Worksheet).
4. As a result of the adjustment, Petitioner’s route received a lower classification, and Petitioner’s rate of pay was reduced (Kimball Decl.; Worksheet; PS Form 4240).
5. Although the route adjustment occurred on August 15, 1998, and the lower classification and rate of pay became effective on that date, Respondent did not process the reduction to Petitioner’s pay until September 28, 1998 (Grievant’s Summary/Statement dated January 15, 1999).
6. Because of the delay in effecting the pay adjustment, Petitioner was paid at the pre-adjustment rate for three pay periods after the August 15, 1998 effective date of the reduction of his route, resulting in an overpayment of $417.61 (Invoice; Petitioner’s Pay Stubs; PS Form 8191, Grievance Form).
7. On April 21, 1999, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating Respondent’s intention to make deductions from Petitioner’s pay to recover the $417.61 overpayment (Notice).
8. Petitioner filed a timely Petition challenging the proposed collection.
DECISION
Petitioner argues that the overpayment resulted from Respondent’s failure to adjust his pay in a timely fashion after the route was reduced, and that he was not aware that the change had not been made to his pay because he was never told exactly what the post-adjustment pay was supposed to be. He argues that this circumstance excuses him from repaying the overpayment. However, even though Petitioner might not have known exactly what the reduction to his pay would be, he acknowledged the reduction of the territory of his route and must have been aware that a reduction of his pay would follow. Petitioner was not entitled to receive payment based on work he was no longer performing, and Respondent is entitled to recover the overpayment from Petitioner, notwithstanding that Respondent’s delay in processing the adjustment led to the overpayment.(1) See Jill Jacquin, P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-371, January 27, 1997.
Petitioner suggests that the worksheet on which the adjustment was based (Finding 3) was incorrect because it failed to take into account certain mail that he was actually delivering. He also argues that a count in November of 1998 raises doubts about the accuracy of the August 15 adjustment. Neither of these circumstances was shown to be relevant to the accuracy of the adjustment. Additionally, these challenges to the August 15 adjustment at this late date are not sufficient to overcome Petitioner’s acknowledgement of and apparent agreement with the route adjustment at the time it was concluded in August of 1998 (Finding 3). If Petitioner believed that there were inaccuracies in the calculations underlying the adjustment or that the adjustment was incorrect, then would have been the time to complain.
Finally, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief from the debt because he never received a response to his request for an explanation why processing the adjustment to his pay took from August 15 to September 28, 1998. This request was apparently made directly to Respondent’s customer service analyst on May 14, 1999. Although the Petition had been docketed by that time, Petitioner did not submit the request to Respondent’s representative in this proceeding and did not ask the hearing official for an order directing that the information be provided or seek relief from the schedule for submission of evidence and argument in this case. Accordingly, any failure by the analyst to respond to the inquiry is not a basis for granting the Petition. Besides, as discussed above, the cause of any delay in processing the adjustment has no bearing on Petitioner’s obligation to repay the overpayment.
Accordingly, the Petition is denied.