April 24, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
ROBERT L. MILLER
19298 Haviland Drive
at
South Bend, IN 46637-2016
P.S. Docket No. DCA 02-65
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Thomas Osmer
P.O. Box 794
South Bend, IN 46624-0794
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Julianne Sheffield
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
P.O. Box 9401
Indianapolis, IN 46298-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Robert Miller, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated November 26, 2001, from his supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $4,612.83 from Petitioner's salary to recover a shortage in an account for which Petitioner was responsible.
A hearing was held in South Bend, Indiana on April 12, 2002.[1] The Postal Service presented testimony from James Magera, the supervisor who conducted an audit of Petitioner's account, and Mary Ivancsics, another supervisor. Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Both parties also relied on documents filed with the Petition and the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has been a window clerk for approximately seven years. At the time pertinent to this case he worked at the South Bend, Indiana Main Post Office as a "pool" clerk. This means he filled in at various offices as needed. (Tr. 9, 33, 38).[2]
2. Petitioner had been assigned a window clerk credit at the South Bend Main Post Office at least since September 1997. (Tr. 9; Answer, Tab 1).
3. Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Magera, conducted a regular periodic audit of Petitioner's account on August 21, 2001, and found the account to be short $4,612.83.[3] Petitioner participated in the count and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating agreement with the accuracy of the count. (Tr. 10-11; Answer, Tab 2).
4. Because Petitioner told Mr. Magera that he believed the shortage was due to stock being transferred to other clerks without being properly recorded, Mr. Magera decided to conduct a recount of Petitioner’s stock after auditing the other clerks named by Petitioner. Mr. Magera did audit those clerks but found no overages that would explain Petitioner's shortage. He then conducted a recount of Petitioner's stock on October 19, 2001 and found the same $4,612.83 shortage. Petitioner participated in the count and signed a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, indicating agreement with the accuracy of the count. During the intervening time, Petitioner's stock was sealed and secured. (Tr. 11-12, 21-22, 34, 37; Answer, Tab 3).
5. Petitioner's audit history since September 1997 shows six other occasions when he had shortages outside the tolerance limit. (Tr. 12-14; Answer, Tab 1).
6. A Letter of Demand for $4,612.83 was issued to Petitioner on October 19, 2001, and the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets was issued on November 26, 2001. (Answer, Tabs 6 and 8).
DECISION
The standard for determining an employee’s liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned “are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties.” Handbook F‑1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), §141.
Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. Respondent is not required to prove that any specific dereliction or act of negligence by Petitioner caused the loss. When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss.
In this case, Petitioner's claim that the shortage is due to stock being transferred from his account to other clerks without a concomitant reduction of his account balance is not supported by any credible evidence. Petitioner testified that these transfers took place some time prior to the August 21 audit, but he did not say to whom he transferred stock and called no other clerks to support his position. Also, Mr. Magera testified that he counted the clerks that Petitioner identified to him after the August 21 count and found no corresponding overages. The evidence does not raise a doubt about the accuracy of Petitioner's opening balance on August 21 or October 19 and Respondent's evidence is sufficient to prove a loss of $4,612.83.
Petitioner also argues that Respondent did not make a timely response to his request for documents pertaining to key checks. Even assuming that is true, Petitioner did receive the requested documents prior to the hearing and he presented no evidence that he was damaged in any way in preparing for the hearing or in presenting his case at the hearing. In addition, he presented no evidence that any other person had a key, or any other access, to his stamp stock.
Finally, Petitioner presented no evidence or argument that he should be relieved of liability under the regulatory standard quoted above based on his following established procedures or exercising reasonable care in managing his accountability. Further, his audit history suggests otherwise, as does his testimony that he gave stock to other clerks without making any record of such transfers.
Respondent has carried its burden of establishing a loss from Petitioner's account and Petitioner has presented no basis for relieving him of liability. The Petition is denied. Respondent may collect $4,612.83 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker telephone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.