In the Matter of the Petition
by
LINDA D. MILES
at
P.S. Docket No. DCA 04-119
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sheila Hunter
NAPUS
P.O. Box 232
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Richard M. Norcross
Manager, Labor Relations
P.O. Box 929401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION
ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Linda D. Miles, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on August 12, 2004. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $9,302.24 from Petitioner’s salary to recover a shortage in an account at Petitioner’s post office.
Petitioner elected to have the case decided on written submissions. The parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Petitioner filed a sworn Declaration. Respondent filed nothing.[1] The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. During the time pertinent to this case Petitioner was the postmaster at Gable, South Carolina. The office’s main stock was assigned to her. She also had a separate clerk account assigned to her. (Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum; unsigned memo, N.J. Sampson).
2. In March 2002, Petitioner suffered an on-the-job injury and was out of the office until August 2003. During this time, the office was run by Ms. Kelly, but the custodianship of the main stock was not transferred to Ms. Kelly, and Ms. Kelly did not have access to the main stock. (Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum).
3. For a time, Petitioner would return to the office as needed to issue stock from the main stock. In approximately January 2003, Ms. Kelly established a second “main stock,” so that she could order and receive stamp stock and issue it for sale without having to use Petitioner’s main stock. The record does not explain who authorized this, or how it was done. (Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum).
4. Ms. Kelly resigned from the Postal Service in August 2003. The Gable Post Office, including the main stock, was then scheduled to be transferred from Petitioner to Ms. McFadden on August 28 or 29, 2003. (Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum).
5. One or two days before the transfer, Petitioner came to the Gable office to count her individual account and the main stock, apparently in preparation for the transfer. For reasons not explained in the record, Petitioner combined her main stock with Ms. Kelly’s main stock before counting. The record also does not explain how she obtained access to Ms. Kelly’s main stock. Ms. Kelly apparently had already resigned and departed. (Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memorandum).
6. Petitioner’s count revealed a large shortage in the combined main stock, but the record is unclear as to the amount. A count conducted on August 29, 2003, apparently by Petitioner, Ms. McFadden, and a third person, in conjunction with the transfer of the office to Ms. McFadden, showed the shortage to be $9,302.24. (Miscellaneous forms attached to Petitioner’s September 4, 2004 submission; unsigned memo, N.J. Sampson).
7. The total accountability of the main stock was between $30,000 and $40,000. Because the various numbers and calculations on the various forms in the record are not accompanied by any explanation, the precise figure for the total accountability is uncertain. There is no evidence at all as to how much of the total accountability belonged to Petitioner’s main stock as opposed to Ms. Kelly’s “main stock.” (Miscellaneous forms attached to Petitioner’s September 4, 2004 submission).
8. On May 24, 2004, Petitioner was issued a Notice of Debt Determination, stating that she owed the Postal Service $9,302.24. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets for the same amount was issued on August 10, 2004. (Both letters attached to Petitioner’s September 4, 2004 submission).
DECISION
The standard for determining an employee’s liability for a unit reserve or main stock shortage provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned “are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties.” Handbook F‑1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, §141.
Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable. In this case, Respondent failed to carry that burden because there is no evidence as to whether the shortage was in the main stock over which Petitioner had control, or in the second main stock that belonged to Ms. Kelly. Although Petitioner must have gained access to Ms. Kelly’s stock at some time (see Finding #5), Respondent presented no evidence that this stock was ever assigned to Petitioner as part of her accountability.
The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $9,302.24 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] Respondent’s Answer was simply a copy of the same
documents that had been filed by Petitioner, plus a recitation of the findings
from a Postal Inspection Service Memorandum.
Other than Petitioner’s statement, which did not address any relevant
facts, neither party filed any sworn statements from witnesses, as they had
been encouraged to do.