May 1, 2003

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

GUY W. ADKINS

106 Woodcliff Drive, Apt. C

 

at

 

Columbus, OH 43213-1374

 

P. S. Docket Nos. DCA 03-98, DCA 03-99

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Guy W. Adkins

106 Woodcliff Drive, Apartment C

Columbus, OH  43213-1374

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Marvin B. Coleman

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

850 Twin Rivers Drive

Columbus, OH  43216-9401

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Guy W. Adkins, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated February 3, 2003.  These Notices stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold a total of $201.99 from Petitioner’s salary to recover salary overpayments.[1]

            In a telephone conference on March 28, 2003, the parties agreed that this case would be decided on written submissions.  The parties were given time to submit additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer.  Respondent filed an affidavit from Lesia Laury, a Human Resources Specialist.  Petitioner filed nothing.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Sometime prior to February 2002, Petitioner suffered a job-related injury and was receiving workers compensation from the Department of Labor.  In February 2002, he returned to work part time (4 hours per day) for the Postal Service.  He also continued to be paid for four hours per day by the Department of Labor.  (Laury affidavit; Answer, Tab 6, p. 1).

            2.  For May 27, 2002, due to a coding error by Petitioner’s supervisor, Petitioner was paid by the Postal Service for four hours of holiday leave and was also paid for those hours by the Department of Labor.  (Laury affidavit; Answer, Tab 3, p. 4).  

            3.  During the week of July 6-12, 2002, due to a coding error by Petitioner’s supervisor, Petitioner was paid by the Postal Service for eight hours of sick leave and was also paid for those hours by the Department of Labor.  (Laury affidavit; Answer, Tab 3, p. 10).

            4.  On December 20, 2002, Petitioner was issued two letters of demand, with attached invoices stating the basis of the alleged debts - $68.66 for the four hours in May, and $133.33 for the eight hours in July.  (Answer, Tab 3, pp. 4, 6, 10 and 12).

 

 

DECISION

            Petitioner has submitted no evidence and has not disputed the fact that he was paid twice for the hours alleged by Respondent.  He argues that other coding errors have been made in the past and that he should not have to pay for errors that others continue to make.  He also claims that the Postal Service owes him about $1,000 in back pay.[2]  He also argues that repayment would constitute a financial hardship.

            Respondent’s position is simply that the record shows Petitioner was paid twice for the twelve hours in question and that he is not entitled keep the overpayment.

            In the absence of anything from Petitioner to challenge the assertion that he was double paid for the hours alleged, the invoices and the supporting explanation from Ms. Laury are sufficient to carry Respondent’s burden of proof.  As to the hardship issue, each of the Notices states that Respondent proposes to collect $25 per pay period.  It is not clear whether Respondent intends to collect $25 for each debt, for a total of $50 per pay period.  Although Petitioner has presented very little to demonstrate that this would constitute a hardship, I find it appropriate to limit the withholding to a total of $25 per pay period.

            The Petition is denied.  Respondent may collect $201.99 from Petitioner’s salary at the rate of $25 per pay period.

 

 

 

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge

 

 

 

 


[1] These Notices were not titled “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets,” but they included the Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities that is required to accompany a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  Therefore, Petitioner was properly apprised of his rights, and this debt collection action was properly initiated. 

[2] The record does not reveal the basis for this claim.  During the March 28 telephone conference, the parties were informed that a Debt Collection Act Hearing Official has no jurisdiction to rule on a claim of this nature.  The parties were encouraged, however, to seek help from a payroll expert during their settlement discussion and attempt to resolve all of Petitioner’s pay issues.