December 26, 2002

In the Matter of the Petition by

WILLIAM R. HURLEY

52 Laurelton Drive

at

Torrington, CT 06790-2535

P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-447

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

David W. Deakin, Jr.

P.O. Box 681

Southbury, CT  06488-0681

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Thomas J. O'Keeffe

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

427 West Avenue

Stamford, CT  06910-9411

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, William R. Hurley, filed a Petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated May 10, 2002, from the Manager of Post Office Operations for the Connecticut District, United States Postal Service, the Respondent in this matter.  The Notice stated Respondent’s intent to withhold $3,567.72 from Petitioner’s salary based on a stamp credit shortage at the New Canaan Post Office.

            The Petition, which was undated, was mailed on September 18, 2002, and received in this office on September 23, 2002.  In the Petition, Petitioner acknowledged receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on May 10, 2002, more than four months before mailing his Petition.

            On October 3, 2002, Respondent filed a motion asking that the Petition be dismissed because Petitioner had not filed it within 15 days of receiving the Notice, as required by the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities (Employee and Labor Relations Manual, Exhibit 452.322) and the Rules of Practice for Debt Collection Act proceedings (39 C.F.R. Part 961).

            By Order of October 4, 2002, Petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss.  Petitioner was advised that if he agreed that the Petition was untimely, but intended to argue that the late filing should be excused, he was to state specific reasons and provide any available supporting evidence.

            In a response received on October 18, 2002, Petitioner acknowledged that the Petition was late, but stated that “Petitioner intends to argue” that the lateness should be excused because of personal hardships involving his missing daughter and his attempts to locate her, and because of the need to turn over his post office after being asked, on or about May 20, 2002, to accept a detail as the Officer-in-Charge of the Avon Post Office.

            By Order dated October 21, 2002, Petitioner was informed that the connection between the excuses he had cited and his failure to file on time was not apparent and was not explained by his earlier submittal.  Petitioner was given until November 6, 2002, to file additional explanatory information and/or arguments.

            By letter dated November 19, 2002, Petitioner’s representative entered an appearance on his behalf.  In a telephone conference held on November 26, 2002, Petitioner’s representative was reminded that Petitioner had not filed any additional material in response to the October 21, 2002 Order, and that Petitioner’s initial response (to the October 4, 2002 Order) was inadequate.  Petitioner’s representative was advised that Petitioner could file additional information within 10 days of receipt of the Order reflecting the telephone conference.  Petitioner’s representative received the Order on December 2, 2002.  As of this date, Petitioner has not filed any further information.

            Under §961.10 of the Rules of Practice, the Hearing Official may determine that the employee has waived his right to a hearing and that the employee’s pay may be offset in accordance with the schedule set out in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, if the employee fails to file a Petition within the 15-day allowable period and fails to demonstrate good cause for the delay.

            In this instance, Petitioner filed his Petition more than four months after receiving the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  In response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Petitioner stated what he “intended” to argue, but did not provide any details to demonstrate an actual connection between his claimed excuses and his failure to file his Petition.  Petitioner was specifically advised that what he had filed was inadequate and was given two more opportunities to provide the necessary information.  Petitioner has failed to do so.

            Accordingly, Petitioner has waived his right to a hearing in this matter, and his Petition is denied.  Respondent may withhold $3,567.72 from Petitioner’s pay according to the schedule set out in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

                                                                                    David I. Brochstein

                                                                                    Administrative Judge