March 14, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by	       

MIKE GRIEMAN
1802 Nevada Avenue, East

	at

St. Paul, MN 55119-4225				P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-460

Because it was apparent that the Petition for Hearing that initiated this proceeding was filed months after Petitioner received a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets relating to the debt, Petitioner was directed to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Petitioner filed a timely response to the Order.

The following findings of fact are made for purposes of determining whether the Petition should be dismissed.

1. In March 1999, shortages were discovered in the main stock and in two spare drawers at the Signal Hills Station, then managed by Petitioner. The shortages totaled over $4,900. (Respondent’s Exhibits to Answer ("RX") 1, 2;

Standard Field Accounting System Trust and Suspense Items as of 3/17/99; Petitioner’s "Filing in a Timely Manner" declaration dated January 29, 2001).

2. Petitioner filed a claim for loss seeking relief from the shortage, but the request was denied by the St. Paul, Minnesota Postmaster on November 18, 1999 (RX 2, 3).

3. In December 1999, Respondent relieved Petitioner of responsibility for all but $2,500 of the claimed debt (Standard Field Accounting System Trust and Suspense Items as of 3/17/99; Petitioner’s "Indebtedness" declaration dated January 29, 2001).

4. On February 24, 2000, Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Debt Determination seeking payment of $2,500 for the shortages. The letter reflects that it was accompanied by a copy of the Options Available to Employee form, which advised Petitioner that he could request records relating to the debt. (RX 6; Employee and Labor Relations Manual ("ELM"), Exhibit 452.22 and Section 452.22).

5. On March 6, 2000, Petitioner submitted a request for records regarding the debt, including copies of 1908s [reports of financial discrepancies], letters of demand and training records (March 6, 2000 Letter from Petitioner "To Whom It May Concern").

6. On March 9, 2000, the Supervisor, Financial Services, of the St. Paul Post Office issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets to Petitioner stating Respondent’s intention to collect the $2,500 by deduction from Petitioner’s pay. Petitioner received the Notice on March 10. (RX 7, 10).

7. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was accompanied by a Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities and the Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act (RX 7). Those documents stated Petitioner’s right to request copies of documents relating to the debt and to obtain a hearing, provided a hearing petition was submitted on or before the fifteenth calendar day following receipt of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. The Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities described how to file a petition for a hearing and cautioned:

8. If an employee fails to respond to a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets within the time allowed, the postmaster may initiate the involuntary deductions from the employee’s salary 30 days after the date of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (ELM Section 452.34).

9. By letter dated March 10, 2000, responding to Petitioner’s March 6 request for documents, the Supervisor, Financial Services, provided Petitioner copies of certain demand letters, including the March 9 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, and advised Petitioner to request copies of the 1908s from the Northland District office of the Postal Service in Minneapolis and training records from the training unit (Letter from Linda G. Holty dated March 10, 2000; Petitioner’s "Filing in a Timely Manner" declaration dated January 29, 2001).

10. On March 13, Petitioner requested copies of the 1908s and training records as directed in Respondent’s March 10 letter (Finding 9) and on April 21, 2000, not having received them, followed up with another letter "To Whom It May Concern" asking for the documents (April 21, 2000 Letter from Petitioner; Petitioner’s "Indebtedness" declaration dated January 29, 2001; Petitioner’s "Filing in a Timely Manner" declaration dated January 29, 2001).

11. On or about May 12, 2000, Petitioner received his training records and on or about May 20, 2000, he received the requested information regarding the 1908s (Trust and Suspense Items Report; Petitioner’s "Filing in a Timely Manner" declaration dated January 29, 2001).

12. The Options Available to Employee notice that accompanied the February 24 Letter of Debt Determination, also advised Petitioner that he could request reconsideration of the debt. The Options form noted that a request for reconsideration must be filed, in writing, within fifteen days after receipt of the Options Available to Employee notice, unless the employee requests copies of documents, in which case the request for reconsideration is to be filed within fifteen days after receipt of the requested records. (RX 6; Employee and Labor Relations Manual ("ELM"), Exhibit 452.22 and Section 452.235).

13. On June 8, 2000, Petitioner wrote to the Supervisor, Financial Services, asking for reconsideration of the letter of debt determination dated February 24, 2000 (Letter from Petitioner dated June 8, 2000).

14. On September 18, 2000, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the debt and waiver of payment of the $2,500 and indicated that it intended to proceed with the collection procedure (RX 9). Petitioner received the letter at work on November 18, 2000 (Petitioner’s "Indebtedness" Statement dated January 29, 2001).

15. On November 21, 2000, Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

16. The rules applicable to Debt Collection Act proceedings provide,

The Petition for Hearing in this case was not filed within fifteen days after Petitioner received the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (Findings 6, 7, 15). Such late filing may waive Petitioner’s right to a hearing, unless there is good cause for the delay (Finding 16). Under the circumstances of this case, good cause for the delay has been shown.

At the time Respondent issued the March 9, 2000 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets (Finding 6), the time for pursuing the remedies offered by the February 24 Letter of Debt Determination had not expired (Findings 4, 12, 13), and Petitioner was following the instructions in the Options Available to Employee in an attempt to resolve the $2,500 claim against him. Issuance of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, with its fifteen-day period for requesting a hearing, was bound to be confusing because the time periods of the two processes overlapped. For example, the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities offered Petitioner an opportunity to request records when he had already made such a request three days earlier pursuant to the offer included in the Options Available to Employee notice.

Having the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets and its procedures overlap those of the Letter of Debt Determination procedures, as occurred in this case, risks confusing the employee about what he needs to do to preserve his appeal rights and risks confusing the Postal Service officials attempting to collect the debt. Apparently both Petitioner and management were confused regarding the procedures to follow. Notwithstanding the passage of more than 30 days after issuance of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, Respondent’s officials failed to implement involuntary withholdings from his salary (Finding 8). They may have believed that such action would have been premature while the reconsideration period offered by the Letter of Debt Determination remained open.¹  That Petitioner was confused is evidenced by his failure to file a Petition for Hearing after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, even though he was actively pursuing relief from the debt. Once he received the denial of his reconsideration request, Petitioner promptly filed a Petition for Hearing.

Accordingly, good cause for the delay in filing has been shown, and the Petition will not be dismissed as untimely. The parties are to confer to discuss settlement of this claim. If they are not able to reach a settlement, on or before March 23, 2001, they are to propose a mutually agreeable date and place for a hearing.

					Norman D. Menegat
					Administrative Judge