April 3, 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 ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Respondent's claim against Petitioner in this case was for $3,240.80, based on Petitioner's receipt of continuation of pay (COP) payments in 2000. Petitioner was not entitled to COP for the period in question. A Final Decision was issued on March 12, 2002, holding that the pay records submitted by Respondent proved that Petitioner had been overpaid only in the amount of $2,633.72. The Final Decision also noted that this figure appeared to represent gross pay and that Respondent would have to calculate the correct net amount to withhold from Petitioner.
Respondent, the United States Postal Service, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration under 39 C.F.R. §961.9.
As stated in the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets that was issued to Petitioner on December 18, 2001, the debt is based on Petitioner's receipt of continuation of pay (COP) to which Petitioner was not entitled in 2000. The Notice cited 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. The pay records filed by Respondent covered only pay periods 21-23 and the hours and dollar amounts identified as COP on those records totaled $2,633.72. Therefore, because there was no pay record to show the 10 hours in pay period 20/2000, and because Respondent had not shown how the figure $3,240.80 was calculated, the Final Decision concluded that Respondent had proved an overpayment of only $2,633.72.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Respondent's representative states that his case file included the pay journal for pay period 20/2000.[1] He complains that he had no way of knowing that the file received in this office was incomplete because this was never brought up during the telephone conferences.[2] It is each party's responsibility to present the evidence necessary to carry that party's burden of proof. It is not the judge's role to examine all the documents and advise a party that some element of proof is missing. Likewise, a Motion for Reconsideration is not a vehicle for a party to provide additional evidence.
The Final Decision also noted that the figures in the pay journals appeared to represent gross pay and that Respondent must, therefore, determine the correct net amount to withhold from Petitioner. In the Motion for Reconsideration, Respondent states that the amount of the alleged debt, $3,240.80, is a net amount. Attached to the motion is a document showing various pay figures for pay periods 20-23/2000, that Respondent states was prepared by the "finance department."
The amount arrived at in the Final Decision was determined as follows: The pay journals submitted by Respondent for pay periods 21-23/2000 included highlighted entries indicating COP payments. For pay period 21, the journal showed two entries of 25 hours of COP at $454.09. The total, $908.18, was labeled "gross." For pay period 22, the journal showed one entry of 25 hours of COP at $454.09, one entry of 20 hours of COP at $363.27, and an entry in some other category at $145.31. The total was $962.67 and was labeled "gross." For pay period 23, the journal showed two entries of 25 hours of COP at $454.09. The total, $908.18, was labeled "gross." Subtracting the $145.31 entry in pay period 22, which apparently was not COP, the total for these three pay periods was $2,633.72.
The new document submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration does contain a column that adds to $3,240.80 and is labeled "net amount owed." Even if I were to accept this document as new evidence, however, the document is not self-explanatory, and Respondent has presented nothing that explains how to reconcile the figures it contains with the figures from the pay journals.
The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge