February 20, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
DENISE HAYES
P. O. Box 881764
at
Los Angeles, CA 90009-3010
P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-350
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Denise Hayes
P. O. Box 881764
Los Angeles, CA 90009-3010
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
J. C. Andrews, Jr.
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
7001 So. Central Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90052-9401
DISMISSAL
By Order dated December 13, 2001, Petitioner was advised that her Petition was incomplete in several respects. She was given until December 28, 2001 to provide the missing information. The Order noted that Petitioner did not state her basis for contesting the alleged debt, did not state whether she wanted an oral or written hearing, did not include work and home telephone numbers, and did not include any documents pertaining to the alleged debt. The Order also noted that the Petition did not include a copy of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. Generally, until that Notice is issued, the Postal Service may not collect a debt by offset from an employee’s pay, and the employee is not entitled to a Debt Collection Act hearing under 39 C.F.R. Part 961. (39 C.F.R. §§961.3(e), 961.4; Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), sections 452.32, 452.336, 462.22, 462.32).
On December 18, 2001, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a motion to dismiss, on the basis that the Petition was incomplete.
Because the December 13 Order, and other documents in this case, all of which were sent to Petitioner by certified mail, were returned unclaimed, another Order was issued on January 28, 2002. This Order gave Petitioner until February 12, 2002 to reply and provide the information noted in the December 13, 2001 Order. The January 28 Order was sent to Petitioner by both certified mail and regular mail, and the regular mail envelope included copies of all previous documents. Petitioner has not replied.
All mailings in this case were addressed to Petitioner at the address she provided in her Petition. It is Petitioner's responsibility to accept official mail sent to her in connection with this case when it is sent to the address she provided. Failure to accept such mail does not excuse her failure to make timely filings.[1]
Accordingly, Respondent's motion is granted and this case is dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge