March 12, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
PATRICIA A. O'CONNELL
91-1665 Elemakule Place
at
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Patricia A. O’Connell
91-1665 Elemakule Place
Ewa Beach, HI 96706-2061
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jeff Olesnevich
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
3600 Aolele Street
Honolulu, HI 96820-3600
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Patricia A. O'Connell, filed a timely Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on December 19, 2001. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $3,240.80 from Petitioner's salary to recover a salary overpayment in 2000.
In her Petition, Petitioner asked for an oral hearing, but during a telephone conference on January 24, 2002, it was determined that this case could more appropriately be handled by written submissions. Neither party opposed this and the parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. After Petitioner's request for additional time was granted, both parties filed additional material. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is a mail carrier. On June 26, 1997, she suffered an injury to her back and foot while on the job. Thereafter, she was absent from work intermittently, but returned to full duty on September 2, 1997. (Petition; Answer, Ex. 5b).
2. Petitioner continued to complain of residual effects from the injury and stopped working on July 29, 1998. On March 24, 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), denied Petitioner's claim for compensation. The OWCP concluded that there was no medical basis for further work restrictions. This was based on a medical examination and evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon on October 14, 1998. The doctor issued his report on November 20, 1998. (Answer, Ex. 5b).
3. The record is unclear as to when, or if, Petitioner worked between July 29, 1998 and September 19, 2000, but she has not worked since September 19, 2000 and has been in a leave without pay (LWOP) status for some time. (Petition).
4. Petitioner received continuation of pay (COP) for a total of 145 hours in pay periods 21-23 of 2000. Pay records show that the total gross pay for these hours was $2,633.72. The record is unclear as to what caused Petitioner to be paid COP for this particular time period. (Pay journals attached to Supplement to Respondent's Answer).
5. On December 18, 2001, Petitioner was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. This Notice stated that she owed the Postal Service $3,240.80 for overpayment of 10 hours of COP in pay period 20/2000; 50 hours of COP in pay period 21/2000; 45 hours of COP in pay period 22/2000; and 50 hours of COP in pay period 23/2000. (Attachment to Petition).
DECISION
Petitioner has raised no issues in this case other than that she continues to have disabilities as a result of her injury and other medical problems, and that repayment of the alleged debt would cause a financial hardship. It was made clear to Petitioner in a telephone conference on January 24, 2002, that a Hearing Official in a Debt Collection Act proceeding has no authority to review an OWCP decision on an employee's claim for injury compensation. Also during that telephone conference, the Postal Service representative explained that there can be no withholding from Petitioner's salary at this time because Petitioner is not currently in a pay status. Any withholding would be from funds due Petitioner when she resigns or retires from the Postal Service, or from her salary if she returns to work.
Therefore, the only issues to be addressed are whether Respondent has shown that Petitioner was paid the amount of COP alleged and whether Petitioner should be granted some relief from the proposed repayment schedule.
Respondent's presentation of the OWCP denial letter and memorandum is sufficient to prove that Petitioner was not entitled to COP for the pay periods in question. Respondent has presented nothing, however, to show how the figure $3,240.80 was calculated. The pay journals presented by Respondent cover pay periods 21-23 and show the gross COP figures stated in Finding of Fact #4. There are no pay records for pay period 20/2000. Therefore, I conclude that Respondent has proved only that Petitioner was paid $2,633.72 to which she was not entitled.
Petitioner's evidence regarding financial hardship is based in large part on the fact that she is not now working. As she is drawing no salary from which deductions could be made, there is no basis at this time for addressing her claim that such deductions would constitute a severe financial hardship. A lump sum withholding from monies otherwise due her on retirement or resignation would not constitute a hardship.
The Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Respondent may collect $2,633.72 from Petitioner.[1]
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] As it appears from the pay journals filed by Respondent that this represents gross pay, Respondent must determine the correct net amount to be withheld.