FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Ron Williams, filed a Petition for Hearing Under the Debt Collection Act challenging the collection by Respondent, United States Postal Service, of a debt it claims Petitioner owes. In its Answer, Respondent argued that the Petition was filed late and that a hearing should not be granted.

The following findings of fact are made for purposes of deciding the timeliness of the Petition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, a letter carrier, was injured in 1997 while delivering mail. Respondent or Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs on Respondent’s behalf paid Petitioner’s medical expenses totaling $22,871.84. (Respondent’s Answer Exhibit (“AE”) 1).

2. Petitioner filed a claim for the injuiry against the insurance company of the customer on whose property he was injured. In 1998, Petitioner received a settlement of $75,000 on the claim. (AE 1).

3. Respondent notified Petitioner of its claim to reimbursement out of Petitioner’s insurance recovery for the $22,871.84 in medical expenses (AE 3).

4. On February 23, 1999, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating its intention to collect the amount of $22,871.84 by involuntary deductions from Petitioner’s salary at the rate of approximately $135 per pay period. The Notice, which Petitioner received on or about February 25, 1999, included a Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities which advised Petitioner of his right to petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act to challenge the existence or amount of the debt or Respondent’s proposed schedule for its collection. The Statement noted that a request for such hearing must be filed “on or before the fifteenth calendar day following your receipt of this notice.” The Statement included the following warning:

“NOTE: While you may request a hearing and pursue one of the other available options, your hearing petition must be filed within the required time period.
If questions relating to this debt are resolved before the hearing is held, your petition may be withdrawn."

The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets also included a copy of the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Employee Hearing Petitions Under Section 5 of the Debt Collection Act. These rules, in Section 961.4 (a), repeat the requirement that a petition for a hearing be filed within fifteen days after receipt of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. (AE 4).

5. Petitioner did not file a petition after receiving that Notice. Another Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same debt and proposing the same offset schedule was issued to Petitioner on April 6, 1999. That Notice also included the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities. (AE 6).

6. A grievance was filed but not advanced beyond Step 1 (AE 7; Petitioner’s November 24, 2001 Letter).

7. Deductions from Petitioner’s salary began in approximately January of 2000 (AE 7).

8. On October 2, 2001, Petitioner filed his Petition for Hearing Under the Debt Collection Act challenging Respondent’s collection of the debt. He recognized that the Petition was late, but argued it should be accepted because he received inadequate advice of his rights after he received the February 23, 1999 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. (Petition).

9. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file a further statement of reasons for accepting his late-filed Petition, and he filed a response on November 24, 2001 (Petitioner’s November 24, 2001 Letter).

DECISION

The Debt Collection Act and Respondent’s implementing regulations require that a petition for a hearing be filed within fifteen days after receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. 5 U.S.C. §5514 (a)(2); Employee and Labor Relations Manual Sections 452.331, 452.336; 39 C.F.R. §961.4. An employee may be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing if the petition is filed after the fifteen-day period and the employee “fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay.” 39 C.F.R. §961.10 (a).

Petitioner argues that he received inadequate advice from representatives of a supervisors’ association (NAPS) and his union (NALC) in 1999 after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets and was misled thereby into foregoing his right to file a petition.[1] However, the requirement to file a timely petition was made plain in the information provided to him, and Petitioner should have been aware that he was required to file a petition within fifteen days in order to preserve his right to contest the involuntary offset. Petitioner also argues that the deductions from his pay, which began in early 2000, only became a burden when, allegedly because of his injuries, he was unable to continue a second job. This is not a basis for affording Petitioner a hearing to challenge the debt at this late date. On this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for delaying filing a petition for more than two years after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed as untimely.[2]

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

[1] The allegedly erroneous advice was, apparently, that he was obligated to reimburse Respondent for the medical expenses paid on his behalf and that challenging the collection would be futile.

[2] Petitioner argues that his injury was caused in part by Respondent’s requirement for haste on his route and that, therefore, Respondent is partially liable for his injuries. This is an issue that need not be addressed since the dismissal of the Petition as untimely precludes consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to collection of the debt.