May 4, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by

          at

New Milford, CT 06776-3354

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-97

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Thomas J. Monastero
18 Summit Drive, Apt. 5A
New Milford, CT 06776-3354

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Thomas J. O'Keeffe
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
427 West Avenue
Stamford, CT 06910-9411

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Petition was filed late, i.e., that it was not filed within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, as required by 39 C.F.R. §961.4(a). The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in this case is dated January 18, 2001. The Petition, although dated February 19, 2001, was not received until March 22, 2001.

Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion, to either contest the fact that the Petition was late or to argue that late filing should be excused. Petitioner did not reply.

The Debt Collection Act and Respondent’s implementing regulations require that a petition for a hearing be filed within 15 days after receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. 5 U.S.C. §5514(a)(2); Employee and Labor Relations Manual §452.331; 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 15-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).

This Petition was filed approximately two months after the date on the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. Although the record does not show exactly when Petitioner received the Notice, Petitioner has not claimed that he received the Notice long after the January 18 date. Further, as the Petition in this case was received on March 22, 2001, in the absence of any evidence on the point there is no reason to believe it was placed in the mail any earlier than March 15, 2001.¹  Accordingly, I find that the Petition was filed well beyond the 15-day time limit, and Petitioner has submitted nothing to show that the late filing should be excused. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge