June 16, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by ERIC L. CAMINITI 6263 Independence Drive at Columbus, GA 31909-4419 P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-545 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Luther Russell 4452 Utica Circle Columbus, GA 31907-6411 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel Smith Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 451 College Street Macon, GA 31213-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Eric L. Caminiti, filed a timely Petition requesting an oral 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 on November 29, 1999. The Notice advised Petitioner that he was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $848.77 resulting from a shortage in his flexible credit.
A hearing was held on April 26, 2000, in Columbus, Georgia. The Postal Service presented the testimony of three employees and Petitioner testified in his behalf. In addition to the transcript of the hearing, the record also contains Respondent’s Exhibits R-1 through R-6 and R-11 through R-15.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Columbus, Georgia Post Office. Upon being assigned to the position, Petitioner received adequate training in the duties of a window clerk. (Transcript pages (Tr.) 41-43; Respondent’s Exhibit R-14).
2. On October 29, 1998, Petitioner discovered a shortage in his accountability of approximately $500.00 that prevented him from completing his "close out" procedure at the end of the day. Petitioner’s supervisor instructed him on how to close out for that day and Petitioner’s accountability was then audited on November 2, 1998, his next day at work. (Tr. 52, 55).
3. The audit disclosed that Petitioner had a total shortage in his accountability of $848.77. Petitioner did not request a recount and signed the audit document, thereby indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the audit. (Tr. 8, 9, 52, 53, 56; Respondent’s Exhibit R-2).
DECISION
The applicable 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), §141. Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of an 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 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. In this case Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of the audit and signed the audit document at the completion of the audit, thereby contemporaneously indicating his agreement with the accuracy of the audit. Moreover, Petitioner did not ask for a recount. Thus, Respondent has met its burden of establishing that the Postal Service suffered a loss of $848.77 as a result of the shortage in that amount in Petitioner’s flexible credit.
The burden shifts, therefore, to Petitioner to show that he followed established postal procedures in managing his assigned flexible credit, or to present other evidence that would warrant relieving him of liability. Petitioner did not argue or offer evidence to show that he followed established postal procedures in managing his assigned accountability. Instead, Petitioner argued that he had not received proper training for his duties as a window clerk and that the loss may have resulted from a lack of security at the post office.(1)
The record in this Petition does not support either argument of Petitioner. The generalized arguments by Petitioner that security was lacking at the post office, even if true, would not support relieving him of liability since Petitioner failed to establish any connection between the loss at issue and the alleged lack of security. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion that he lacked proper training, the record demonstrates that he received adequate training in his duties as a window clerk (Finding of Fact No. 1).
Accordingly, this Petition is denied and Respondent may recover $848.77 from Petitioner’s salary.
William K. Mahn Administrative Judge