February 14, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by MARIE E. LARRY 1011 Seneca Oak Trail at Geneva, FL 32732-9194 P.S. Docket No. AO 00-494 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Charles Scialla Scialla Associates, Inc. 453 Preakness Avenue, #5 Paterson, NJ 07502-1121 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Peter Henry, Esq. Employment and Labor Law United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6414 Washington, DC 20260-1150
INITIAL DECISION
Petitioner, Marie E. Larry, filed a Petition for hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 966 after receiving a November 21, 2000 letter from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), stating that $4,252.30 would be collected from her monthly annuity checks to recover for overpayments Petitioner had received under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS).
Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a motion to dismiss this case on the grounds that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate this case under the provisions applicable to Administrative Offset cases, 39 C.F.R. Part 966. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so. The following findings of fact are based on the documents attached to the Petition.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner left the employ of the Postal Service because of disability in August 1997. While the amount of her monthly annuity payments under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) was being determined, she was paid interim payments by OPM in order to prevent financial hardship while her application was processed. She was informed at that time that any overpayment would be recouped.
2. On June 12, 1998, OPM informed Petitioner that the interim payments had resulted in an overpayment of $2,410.00. Sometime thereafter, OPM determined that Petitioner had been overpaid an additional $1,842.30 because her annuity had erroneously commenced on August 3, 1997, rather than August 30, 1997.
3. At some point, Petitioner requested that OPM reconsider their decision, and on July 28, 2000, Petitioner wrote to OPM asking that the alleged overpayment be waived.
4. On November 21, 2000, OPM affirmed their initial decision and also denied Petitioner's request for a waiver. The OPM letter also informed Petitioner that she had a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and included instructions as to how to file an appeal.
DECISION
39 C.F.R. Part 966 provides a process by which former Postal Service employees may challenge the collection of alleged debts by the Postal Service through the withholding of money that would otherwise be payable to the former employee. These rules apply only to determinations by the Postal Service that the former employee owes a debt to the Postal Service. 39 C.F.R. §966.2 and §966.3(a) and (b).
The Postal Service has no involvement in the debt alleged in this case. OPM determined that Petitioner owes a debt, and it is OPM that proposes to withhold money from Petitioner's retirement annuity. Petitioner has the right of appeal described in the OPM letter of November 21, 2000, but Petitioner cannot challenge the alleged debt through the provisions of 39 C.F.R. Part 966.
Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge