March 22, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by GERALDINE SMITH 2077 Strang Avenue at Bronx, NY 10466-2342 P.S. Docket Nos. DCA 00-34, DCA 00-35 & DCA 00-36 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Geraldine Smith 2077 Strang Avenue Bronx, NY 10466-2342 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Sandra L. Peets Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service J.A. F. Building, Room 3505 421 8th Avenue New York, NY 10199-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Geraldine Smith, filed three timely Petitions in which she requested an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving three Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on January 19, 2000. The Notices advised Petitioner that she was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $567.66 for a shortage in her flexible credit on November 17, 1991, for $469.91 resulting from a shortage identified on February 2, 1993, and for a shortage of $275.02 identified on October 11, 1996.
A consolidated hearing was held on March 8, 2000, in New York, NY. The Postal Service presented the testimony of two witnesses and Petitioner testified on her own behalf. In addition to the transcript of the hearing, the record consists of Respondent’s Exhibits R-1 through R-12 and Petitioner’s Exhibit P-1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a window clerk at the James A. Farley Post Office in New York, NY, at least since 1991. On November 7, 1991, Petitioner’s flexible credit was audited and found to be short $567.66. She was issued a Letter of Demand seeking repayment of $567.66 on the same date. (Transcript page (Tr.) 55; Respondent’s Exhibits R-1, R-10).
2. On February 2, 1993, Petitioner was again audited and found to be short $469.91. Petitioner evidenced her agreement with the accuracy of the count by signing the audit form. Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand on February 2, 1993, seeking repayment of the shortage. (Respondent’s Exhibits R-2, R-11).
3. On September 27, 1996, Petitioner’s flexible credit was again audited and found to have a shortage of $485.02. A subsequent investigation by her supervisor concluded that $210.00 of previously found duck stamps should be credited to Petitioner’s accountability. The audit shortage was thereafter reduced by $210.00, leaving a shortage of $275.02. Petitioner participated in the audit and signed the audit documents on September 30, 1996, thereby indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the audit. Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand on October 2, 1996, seeking repayment of $275.02. (Tr. 43, 44; Respondent’s Exhibits R-1, R-4-R-6, R-12).
4. On January 19, 2000, the Postal Service issued Petitioner three Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets seeking repayment of the $567.66 shortage identified in the November 7, 1991 Letter of Demand, the $469.91 shortage identified in the February 2, 1993 Letter of Demand, and the $275.02 shortage identified in the October 2, 1996 Letter of Demand (Petitioner’s Exhibit P-1).
5. In response to the Notices, Petitioner requested Respondent to furnish her with all relevant documentation of the shortages (Tr. 57). Petitioner was originally informed that the requested documents did not exist. However, the documents comprising Respondent’s Exhibits R-1 through R-12 were furnished to Petitioner just prior to the hearing on March 8, 2000. (Tr. 25, 26).
DECISION
Petitioner argues that she has no recollection of any of these shortages and that it is unfair to bring these collection actions up to nine years after the shortages allegedly occurred.
The standard for determining liability in cases such as these is found in Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, subsection 132(1):
132 Other Employees
The postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties.
Respondent’s burden of proof, in cases of unexplained shortages such as these, is to establish a loss and to show that Petitioner was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. When a properly conducted 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 audit or previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. Richard G. Dreher, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-223 (Sept. 2, 1997). Petitioner does not dispute that she was accountable for the stock in question with respect to each of the audits involved in these Petitions. However, as explained below, Respondent’s evidence supporting its burden of proof with respect to each of the alleged losses varies widely.
P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-34
Respondent offered a single document to support its allegation that the Postal Service incurred a loss as a result of an alleged $567.66 shortage in Petitioner’s accountability discovered on November 7, 1991. This document, P.S. Form 3368, was used by various supervisors of Petitioner to record the date and the result of each of Petitioner’s audits. However, the single line entry with respect to the November 7, 1991 audit contains no information concerning the audit itself. Most importantly, it does not demonstrate that Petitioner agreed with the finding that the audit found a $567.66 shortage in her accountability. No testimony was provided by Respondent as to the audit itself, or what was the previously established balance or the cash and stock on hand in Petitioner’s accountability on the date of the audit. Simply stated, Respondent has not met its burden of proving a $567.66 loss to the Postal Service in this Petition. Accordingly, the Petition is sustained.
P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-35
Respondent’s evidence in support of this alleged shortage consists of the aforementioned P.S. Form 3368 and the audit document itself (P.S. Form 3294) that indicates a finding of a shortage of $469.91 in Petitioner’s flexible credit discovered in an audit conducted on February 2, 1993. Petitioner signed the audit document, thereby indicating her agreement with the accuracy of the audit’s findings. (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 2). This evidence is normally sufficient to satisfy Respondent’s burden of establishing that a loss occurred, and to shift the burden to Petitioner to come forward with evidence challenging that a loss actually occurred or demonstrating that she exercised reasonable care, or that other reasons exist to excuse the loss (e.g., that management failed to provide adequate security). In this instance, however, Petitioner’s ability to defend herself against this alleged shortage is defeated by Respondent’s failure to bring the action in a more timely fashion.
Some seven years have passed since the alleged shortage occurred. Petitioner has no recollection of the audit or the circumstances surrounding the audit. Although she timely requested documents relevant to the alleged shortage, none were provided to her until the day of the hearing. In these circumstances, it would be manifestly unfair to hold Petitioner liable for a seven year old alleged shortage. This Petition is sustained.
P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-36
Respondent has satisfactorily demonstrated that there was a shortage of $275.02 in Petitioner’s accountability as of October 2, 1996. In addition to the audit document (signed by Petitioner on September 30, 1996), Petitioner’s supervisor, who conducted the audit, testified that Petitioner contemporaneously agreed with the accuracy of the audit’s findings. Immediately following the audit itself, the supervisor conducted an investigation that resulted in crediting Petitioner’s accountability with $210.00 of duck stamps. (FOF 3). This evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to Petitioner to explain why she should not be held liable for the shortage. Petitioner, however, did not present any evidence that would warrant excusing her from payment of the remaining shortage.
Accordingly, this Petition is denied and Respondent may collect $275.02 from Petitioner’s salary.
William K. Mahn Administrative Judge