August 6, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by EUGENE B. MARLEY, JR. 69656 Elkhart Road at Edwardsburg, MI 49112-8403 P.S. Docket No. AO 01-35 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Eugene B. Marley, Jr. 69656 Elkhart Road Edwardsburg, MI 49112-8403 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Gene Mills Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 1501 South Clinton Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802-9401
INITIAL DECISION
Petitioner, Eugene B. Marley, Jr., filed a Petition for hearing after receiving an invoice from the Postal Service Accounting Service Center seeking payment of $5,832.53 based on an alleged salary overpayment.
The case was originally docketed as a Debt Collection Act case under 39 C.F.R. Part 961 (P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-4). It was determined after the filing of the Petition that Petitioner was no longer a Postal Service employee, and the Petition was dismissed because the Debt Collection Act procedures apply only to current employees. The case was immediately redocketed on January 26, 2001, as an Administrative Offset case under 39 C.F.R. Part 966, the procedures applicable to debts alleged against former employees.1 All documents in the original case file were incorporated in the new case file.
The parties requested a hearing based on written submissions rather than an oral hearing and they were given an opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence and argument. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On January 21, 1995, Petitioner took a voluntary downgrade from a level 5, Step A clerical position to that of a level 3, Step A custodial position. His Postmaster informed Petitioner at the time of the downgrade that he would, in fact, be placed in Step A of level 3. (Petition, Exhibit 5; Petitioner’s Supplemental Evidence).
2. A subsequent review of Petitioner’s pay status by the Pay Anomaly Task Force determined that Petitioner should have been placed in Step AA of level 3 at the time of the downgrade. The Pay Anomaly Task Force determined that Petitioner was overpaid $5,832.53 as a result of having been placed in Step A, instead of Step AA, at the time of the voluntary downgrade. (Respondent’s Supplemental Evidence, Exhibit 1).
3. On April 26, 2000, The Postal Service Accounting Service Center sent Petitioner an invoice seeking payment of $5,832.53 of salary overpayment (Petition, Exhibit 1).
4. The section of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) applicable to reductions in grade, including voluntary changes to lower level, that was then in effect provided as follows:
422.252b. The New Lower Grade. The employee is
assigned (1) to the step and next step date in the
lower grade as if all postal service had been in the
next lower grade or (2) to any higher step in the lower
grade which is less than one full step above the basic
salary the employee held in the higher grade,
provided compensation does not exceed the
maximum for the grade.
DECISION
Respondent argues that Petitioner received $5,832.53 in salary overpayment as a result of an administrative error at the time of his voluntary downgrade and should now be required to repay that amount. Petitioner argues that no error occurred in that he was told by his Postmaster at the time that he would be placed in Step A of level 3 and that this was an option permitted by ELM §422.252b.
Respondent has the burden of proof in this proceeding of demonstrating by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner owes a valid debt to the Postal Service, and in the amount sought. Respondent has failed to satisfy this burden. Respondent did not submit any evidence as to why Petitioner should have been placed at Step AA in lieu of Step A at the time of Petitioner’s voluntary downgrade in January of 1995. The sole evidence in the record of this Petition that supports Respondent’s claim for $5,832.53 in salary overpayments is the invoice sent to Petitioner by the Accounting Service Center. This evidence is insufficient to establish the amount or the existence of a valid debt owed by Petitioner to the Postal Service. The invoice does not prove that Petitioner was overpaid, but simply demonstrates that someone sent Petitioner an invoice. What is missing from the evidentiary record is a statement from someone that explains why they believe Petitioner was overpaid and how they calculated the overpayment, i.e., a statement from someone on the Pay Anomaly Task Force. Moreover, Respondent did not offer any evidence to contradict Petitioner’s claim that he was placed in the correct Step of level 3 in accordance with option (2) of ELM Section 422.252b (See Finding of Fact No. 4).
Accordingly, the Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $5,832.53 in alleged salary overpayments from Petitioner.
William K. Mahn Administrative Judge