November 4, 2003

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

MARY E. LEE

P.O. Box 2825

 

at

 

Tuscaloosa, AL 36403-2825

 

 

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-359

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Charles Scialla

453 Preakness Avenue #5

Paterson, NJ  07502-1121

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Mark E. Dennett, Esq.

Memphis Law Office

United States Postal Service

225 N Humphreys Boulevard

Memphis, TN  38166-0170

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

 

            Along with the Answer to the Petition, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a motion to dismiss this Petition because it was not timely filed, i.e., that it was not filed within fifteen (15) days of Petitioner's receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

            Petitioner filed her opposition to the motion.

            The Debt Collection Act and Respondent’s implementing regulations require that a petition for a hearing be filed within 15 days after receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  5 U.S.C. §5514(a)(2); Employee and Labor Relations Manual §452.331; 39 C.F.R. §961.4.  An employee may be deemed to have waived the right to a hearing if the petition is filed after the 15-day period and the employee “fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay.”  39 C.F.R. §961.10(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

            1.  Petitioner is a Customer Services Supervisor in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  On July 14, 2003, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand or Indebtedness for $11,813.10 by Milton Jacobs, the Tuscaloosa Postmaster.  This letter explained the options available to Petitioner, including requesting records, proposing an alternative repayment schedule, and requesting reconsideration.  (Answer, Ex. 3).

            2.  On July 18, 2003, Petitioner gave Mr. Jacobs a written explanation for the alleged debt.  (Answer, Ex. 4).

            3.  On August 5, 2003, Mr. Jacobs issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, which she received on that date.  Enclosed with the Notice were copies of a Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities and the Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act.  (Petition; Answer, Ex. 6; Jacobs Declaration).

4.  Both of the documents enclosed with the Notice clearly state the requirement for filing a Petition within fifteen days.  In addition, the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities includes the following:

Note:  While you may request a hearing and pursue one of the other available options, your hearing petition must be filed within the required time period.  If questions related to this debt are resolved before the hearing is held, your petition may be withdrawn.

 

            5.  On August 11, 2003, Petitioner wrote to Mr. Jacobs, requesting reconsideration and also asking for documents related to the alleged debt.  (Answer, Exs. 8 and 9).

            6.  On August 14, 2003, Mr. Jacobs wrote to Petitioner, forwarding certain documents, but also informing her that her request for reconsideration was denied.  (Answer, Exs. 10 and 11).

            7.  On August 20, 2003, Mr. Jacobs wrote another memo to Petitioner, supplementing the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets by stating that $191.45 would be deducted from each paycheck, beginning thirty days from that date.  (Answer, Ex. 12).

8.  On September 24, 2003, Petitioner’s representative filed a Petition on her behalf, acknowledging that the Petition was late, but stating that Petitioner was not provided with information on her right to file a Petition, or the requirement to do so within fifteen days of receipt of the Notice.  (Petition).

            9.  In response to an October 16, 2003 Order directing the parties to file evidence in support of their positions on the timeliness issue, Respondent filed a sworn declaration from Mr. Jacobs.  Petitioner’s representative stated that Petitioner did not fully understand the documentation provided to her, and added that, “[T]hough the above does not absolve the Petitioner of her responsibility to file a timely Petition, the circumstances surrounding the case leave some doubt to the actual debt.”  Based on this, Petitioner asked that the late filing be excused.

DECISION

There is no dispute over the fact that Petitioner was given the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on August 5, 2003, or that she did not file her Petition until September 24, 2003.  Also, there is no longer any dispute over the fact that Petitioner was also provided with a Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities and the Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act.

The Notice and attachments make clear that a petition must be filed within fifteen days, and there is no evidence that Petitioner was misled or confused in any way by any action of Respondent.  There appears to be no reason, therefore, why Petitioner would have believed that the 15-day filing requirement did not begin to run on August 5, 2003.  Leonard F. Davila, P. S. Docket No. DCA 98-452 (February 19, 1999); Robert A. Tucker, Sr., P. S. Docket No. DCA 96-405 (February 5, 1997); Herman Boone, P. S. Docket No. DCA 94-1 (July 25, 1994).[1]

            The Petition was filed more than a month late, and Petitioner has not shown that the late filing should be excused.  Petitioner is deemed to have waived her right to a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.  39 C.F.R. §961.10.  Respondent may collect $11,813.10 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

 

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1] Even if we were to count from the date of Mr. Jacobs’ August 14 or August 20 memos, the Petition was filed well beyond the 15-day time limit.