April 27, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by

SHARON E. ROBY-WILSON

351 South 47^th Street, Apt. B205

at

Philadelphia, PA 19143-1864

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-96

ORDER

Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on August 4, 2000, stating its intention to collect $18,150.83 from Petitioner’s salary to satisfy a claim against her.  The claim was based on discrepancies occurring in the accounts of Logan Station in Philadelphia, which Petitioner managed.  Petitioner filed her Petition for Hearing Under the Debt Collection Act on March 21, 2001, well beyond the 15 days allowed for such filings in applicable Postal Service Regulations, 39 C.F.R. §961.4.  Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition as untimely, and Petitioner filed an opposition to dismissal, including Petitioner’s affidavit explaining her reasons for delay in filing the Petition.  The rules applicable to Debt Collection Act proceedings provide,

“The Hearing Official may determine the employee has waived his or her right to a hearing . . . if the employee files a Petition for hearing after the end of the 15-day period allowed by the Act for filing the Petition, and fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay.”  (39 C.F.R. §961.10).

Under the circumstances of this case, Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for her delay in filing the Petition.  At the time the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued (as well as before and after it was issued), Petitioner was in regular contact with Postal Service management in an attempt to resolve Respondent’s claim of debt as well as Respondent’s intention to discipline Petitioner for her management of Logan Station.  She had filed requests for documents, and Respondent was in the process of supplying the requested documents to her.  Petitioner’s NAPS representative advised her (incorrectly) that involuntary deductions from her salary could not be commenced until all the requested documents had been provided to her.  She believed that there remained a possibility that all of the disputes would be resolved between the parties during the August through December 2000 time period.  However, on January 7, 2001, Respondent issued its final decision indicating its intention to demote Petitioner, and she filed a challenge to the demotion with the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”).  Petitioner expected to resolve liability for the debt claimed by Respondent in the same proceeding.  On March 11, 2001, Respondent rescinded the downgrade, restored Petitioner to her former level and agreed to pay back pay with interest.  The MSPB administrative judge declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Debt Collection Act portion of the case independent of a pending disciplinary action.  Petitioner filed her Petition for Hearing Under the Debt Collection Act on March 21, 2001.

We accept Petitioner’s representation that she failed to file her Petition within fifteen days after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets because she was confused about the requirement to do so given that she was actively pursuing a resolution of the claim through a dialogue with Postal Service officials or through the MSPB proceeding once Respondent issued its final decision.  Her failure to file on time appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the requirements of the applicable rules, rather than from a negligent or willful disregard of the clear instructions that accompany the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets that petitions must be filed within fifteen days after the Notice is received.  Under these circumstances, the late filing is excused.

The hearing set for May 8 and telephone conference set for May 7 at 2:00 p.m. will be held as scheduled.  By April 30, Respondent is to advise the Recorder by telephone or fax of a location where the hearing can be held on May 8 and 9 (if necessary) at a postal facility in Philadelphia convenient to the witnesses listed by Petitioner as well as to its own witnesses.  Respondent’s Answer is to be filed by May 4, 2001, and the actions required by my March 26 Order are to be completed by May 3, 2001.

                                                                                                Norman D. Menegat

                                                                                                Administrative Judge