In the Matter of the Petition by)  November 17, 1999
				)
DEBORAH CHONG			)
3603 Canyon Terrace Drive	)
				)
	at			)
				)
San Bernardino, CA  92407-4305	)  P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-384

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:	Deborah Chong 
				3603 Canyon Terrace Drive
				San Bernardino, CA  92407-4305

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:	Mark B. Duffy
				Labor Relations Specialist
				United States Postal Service
				P. O. Box 19001
				San Bernardino, CA 92423-9401 

Petitioner, Deborah Chong, filed this Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated August 12, 1999, from her postmaster. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $931.48 from her salary to recover for a shortage in her account that was discovered by an audit on November 19, 1998.

Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions, and the parties were given the opportunity to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that submitted with the Petition and the Answer. Both parties filed additional documents. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Riverside Post Office. She has been assigned a cash and stamp credit at least since May 1997. (Answer, Ex. 4).

2. On November 19, 1998 Petitioner's supervisor, Thomas Danberger, audited her account and found it to be $931.48 short. Petitioner participated with Mr. Danberger in doing the count, and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating that she agreed with the count. (Answer,

Ex. 3; Danberger Declaration).

3. Petitioner's audit history shows that her account has been counted eight times since May 1997, including two counts after the one in issue here. On six of those counts, she had shortages outside the tolerance level. (Answer, Ex. 4).

4. At some time after filing her Petition, Ms. Chong requested certain records pertaining to her account. These included Form 17s (stamp requisition forms used to track transfer of stamp stock from one account to another), and Form 1412s (daily financial reports showing all activity in Petitioner's account). These records have not been found. Petitioner claims they were inadvertently thrown out by another employee, but that is not a fact established by the record. On October 12, 1999, Mr. Danberger signed a memo stating that he had not had time to locate the records requested by Petitioner.

Respondent argues that the audit on November 19, 1998, was done properly, that Petitioner signed the Form 3294 agreeing to the accuracy of the count, and that this establishes a loss of $931.48 from her account. Respondent also argues that Petitioner has presented no explanation for the shortage, and that the missing paperwork provides nothing more than a basis for speculation, which should not relieve Petitioner from her accountability.

Petitioner contends that the missing records might contain an error, or errors, that would explain the shortage, and without those records it is impossible to ascertain the cause of the shortage. Implied within this contention is an argument that management is responsible for keeping these records, and that management's failure to do so should relieve Petitioner of liability.

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 the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141. Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. Respondent is not required to prove any specific dereliction, or act of negligence, by Petitioner. When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. The burden then shifts to the employee to show that he or she followed established procedures, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving the employee of liability.

The Postal Service Administrative Support Manual (ASM 12), June 1998, contains the following pertinent provisions regarding records and retention of records:

Exhibit 351.21 of ASM 12 is a chart listing retention periods for various forms. Form 17s are required to be kept four years, and window clerk Form 1412s are required to be kept two years.

These rules make clear that, even though it is probably wise for clerks to keep their own copies of these records, it is management's responsibility to do so. This is no doubt the reason for the requirement that the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets inform employees of their right to request copies of Postal Service records pertaining to the alleged debt (Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) §452.332 and §462.32). The Debt Collection Act itself specifically gives an individual "an opportunity to inspect and copy Government records relating to the debt." 5 U.S.C. §5514(a)(2)(B). Respondent's failure to produce pertinent records or satisfactorily explain why they could not be produced, as evidenced by Mr. Danberger's statement (Finding of Fact #4), precluded Petitioner from offering evidence that might raise doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or previous balances. Respondent may be correct in asserting that it is speculative to blame the apparent shortage on paperwork errors, but the absence of the records is prejudicial to Petitioner's ability to prepare and present her case. Doretha Capers, P.S. Docket No. DCA-144 (September 11, 1992)(Decision on Reconsideration, November 4, 1992).

Therefore, the Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $931.48 from Petitioner's salary.

				Bruce R. Houston
				Chief Administrative Law Judge