November 19, 2001

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

BRADLEY M. EISCHENS

1931 Skull Valley Drive

 

at

 

San Antonio, TX 78245-2811

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-313

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Bradley M. Eischens

1931 Skull Valley Drive

San Antonio, TX  78245-2811

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Janette Barnard

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

1 Post Office Drive

San Antonio, TX  78284-9401

 

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

 

            Petitioner, Bradley Eischens, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on September 18, 2001.  This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $594.52 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment that occurred in 1999.

Petitioner elected a hearing based on written submissions and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Neither party filed any additional material.  The following findings of fact are based on the material submitted with the Petition and the Answer.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is employed at the San Antonio, Texas Post Office.  He was promoted to Grade 6, Step A effective March 28, 1998.  (Answer, Ex. 3, annotation 7).

            2.  On June 20, 1998, Petitioner, at his request, was changed to a lower level position, Grade 5, Step A.  The Personnel Action Form - Form 50, set the date for his next pay step increase as pay period 11 of 1999.  (Answer, Ex. 3, annotation 6).

            3.  In July 1999, it was discovered that the date for Petitioner's step increase was incorrect and should have been pay period 20 of 1999.  A correction was made by a Form 50 on July 14, 1999.  (Answer, Ex. 3, annotation 5).

            4.  From pay period 11 of 1999 through pay period 15 of 1999, until the correction was made on July 14, 1999, Petitioner was paid at Grade 5, Step B, in accordance with the incorrect step increase date.  (Answer, Ex. 4, pages 2-7).

            5.  On August 28, 2001, Petitioner was issued a letter of demand for $594.52, the gross amount of overpayment for the five pay periods in 1999.  An Invoice, dated August 17, 2001 was attached to the letter.  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 2).

DECISION

            Although Respondent has not explained how the step increase dates should have been calculated, or how the error was made, Petitioner has not challenged Respondent's evidence on this point.  Therefore, the pay records submitted by Respondent are sufficient to prove that Petitioner was overpaid as alleged.

            Petitioner argues two points in his Petition.  First, he contends that he should not have to pay for someone else's mistake.  While collection of an overpayment may be waived if the Postal Service chooses to do so,[1] it is well settled that an employee who is overpaid due to an administrative error is not entitled to keep the overpayment even if the employee was not at fault in any way.

            Next, Petitioner asserts that the collection of this debt by deductions in three consecutive pay periods would present a financial hardship.  He submitted a list of his family's monthly expenses to support this.  Although Respondent has contested Petitioner's claim of hardship, I find his position to be reasonable.  Respondent may collect $594.52 from Petitioner's salary, but shall extend the collection in equal amounts over six pay periods.

 

 

 

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1]  A Debt Collection Act Hearing Official is not authorized to grant such a waiver.