June 12, 2003

In the Matter of the Petition by

ALBERT J. SCHUEREN

5825 Hampshire Road

at

Chaska, MN 55318-9323

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-102

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Albert J. Schueren

5825 Hampshire Road

Chaska, MN  55318-9323

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Allen Damerow

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

100 S. First Street, Room 425

Minneapolis, MN  55401-9450

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Albert J. Schueren, filed a Petition for Hearing, after receiving a Letter of Demand, dated February 20, 2003.  This letter stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $1,261 from Petitioner’s salary to recover unpaid health benefits premiums.  Although this letter was not labeled “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets,” it included the statement of employee rights that is normally part of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, including the right to file a Petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

            Action on this case was suspended for a time to determine whether Petitioner’s union had filed a grievance over the same debt.  By Order dated May 6, 2003, after Respondent reported that no grievance had been filed, the parties were advised that, unless a party requested an oral hearing, this case would be decided on written submissions.  The parties were given time to request an oral hearing, or to file additional evidence and argument.  Neither requested an oral hearing.  Respondent filed additional material, including sworn declarations from Doug Lingen, Petitioner’s supervisor, and Linda Holty, a payroll supervisor.  Petitioner submitted no additional material.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner is a mail carrier in Chaska, Minnesota.  On December 10, 2001, Petitioner filled out and signed a Standard Form 2809, Health Benefits Election Form.  He enrolled in a plan called “Health Partners.”  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 2).

            2.  The instructions accompanying SF 2809 state that the employee’s signature in Part G of the form, the part Petitioner signed, authorizes deductions from the employee’s salary to cover the cost of enrollment (Answer, Ex.1).

            3.  For reasons not clear in the record, Petitioner’s Form 2809 was not entered into Respondent’s computerized payroll records until January 7, 2003.  Sometime in 2002, Petitioner noted that he had not received coverage identification cards from Health Partners and that no deductions from his pay were being made for health insurance premiums.  He asked his supervisor, Mr. Lingen, to check on this.  Petitioner subsequently received the identification cards.  (Petition; Holty Declaration).

            4.  During calendar year 2002, the Postal Service paid the employer portion of the cost of Petitioner’s health care benefits.  For the 25 pay periods in calendar year 2002 in which no deductions were taken from Petitioner’s salary, his portion of the health care benefits would have been $1,261, at the rate of $50.44 per pay period.  (Holty Declaration, Atch. 2; Answer, Ex. 8 (Invoice)).

            5.  Regulations governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890.  Under 5 C.F.R. §890.502(a), an employee is deemed to incur an indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made.

DECISION

            Petitioner argues that he should not have to pay for health insurance coverage that he did not think he had during calendar year 2002.  Petitioner presented no evidence that he was ever denied health care or that he had any medical claims rejected during 2002.  Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that, despite the unexplained delay in entering the information from Petitioner’s SF 2809 into the computer, Petitioner did have health insurance coverage during the entire year.  Under the rule stated in Finding #5, Petitioner is obligated to pay the unpaid portion of the premiums.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $1,261 from Petitioner’s salary.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge