November 20, 2001

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

CYNTHIA TURNER

33800 Harrow Court

 

at

 

Cleveland, OH 44139-6224

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-273

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Charles Scialla

453 Preakness Avenue, #5

Paterson, NJ  07502-1121

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Kennoa M. Dixon

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

2200 Orange Avenue, Room 106

Cleveland, OH  44101-9401

 

FINAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

 

            Petitioner, Cynthia Turner, filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the October 24, 2001 Decision in this case.  Respondent sought to collect $5,673.52 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in the unit reserve stock for which Petitioner was accountable.  The Decision held Petitioner, who is the customer services supervisor at the Shaker Heights Post Office in Cleveland, Ohio, liable for that amount.

            Petitioner argues that Postal Service finance personnel failed to respond to her requests for assistance after she discovered the shortage in her unit reserve account on June 7, 2001, and failed to conduct an adequate investigation before asserting the debt claim against her.

            The record suggests that perhaps some finance officials could have been more helpful in attempting to determine precisely what caused the shortage, but Petitioner does not challenge the essential findings that Petitioner was accountable for the unit reserve, that her explanation of various errors did not satisfactorily explain away the shortage, and that the shortage constituted a real loss of stamp stock.  Petitioner's explanation, as contained in her June 20, 2001 letter to Finance, was reviewed by Ms. Bursley, who testified about it at some length (Tr. 25-27, 29-30).  Her testimony demonstrated that Petitioner's arguments were not ignored prior to issuance of the letter of indebtedness.  While Petitioner is correct in asserting that Mr. Strenk, who signed that letter and the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, is responsible for insuring that the facts are adequately investigated before issuing the letters, there is no requirement that he conduct such an investigation himself.   

            Petitioner also re-focuses on a matter that was addressed at some length in testimony at the hearing, but was not discussed in the Decision.  This had to do with the conversion from one computerized stock management system to another in July 2000.  Petitioner asserts that there were "problems" associated with that conversion, and during the hearing sought an explanation for an accounting entry apparently made to correct an imbalance in the retail floor stock account.  (Tr. 13-20, 31-33, 42, 45-46; Pet. Ex. 1).  While it is true that this entry was not very clearly explained by any of Respondent's witnesses, it is also true that Petitioner has not demonstrated how this was in any way related to the shortage in her unit reserve account. 

            Finally, Petitioner suggests that some witnesses may not have testified truthfully, in part because the hearing was conducted by speaker telephone.[1]  As Petitioner did not identify any specific testimony, or provide persuasive argument to demonstrate the falsity of any witness's testimony, this allegation is not a basis for reconsidering the Decision.

            The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

 

 

 

                                                                        Bruce R. Houston

                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge


     [1] While the Hearing Official has the ultimate authority to determine what type of hearing to hold (39 C.F.R. §961.8(d)), the existence of credibility issues is one factor that has a bearing on that determination.