February 3, 2004

In the Matter of the Petition by

MARY BROOKS

6287 Sapphire Street

at

Alta Loma, CA 91701-3113

P.S. Docket No. DCA 03-200

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Michael Stichler

P.O. Box 22025

Santa Barbara, CA  93121-2025

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Lydia Morton

Labor Relations Representative

United States Postal Service

15421 Gale Avenue

City of Industry, CA  91715-9342

FINAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Mary Brooks, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the December 12, 2003 Final Decision in this case.  Respondent sought to collect $2,154.43 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in the unit reserve for which Petitioner was accountable.  The Decision held Petitioner liable for the alleged debt.  Respondent filed a reply to the motion, opposing reconsideration.

            Primarily, Petitioner re-argues her claim that the stamps determined to be “missing” on the September 2002 audit had been sent to the Stamp Distribution Office as redeemed stock sometime in 2001.  This issue was addressed in the Final Decision, and Petitioner has presented no new arguments, other than to say that no one checked with her witness, a T-6 clerk, who verified the redeemed stock shipment.  Petitioner had listed this clerk as a witness prior to the hearing and there is nothing in the record to indicate that she could not have called him to testify if he had any information that would have been helpful to her.

            Petitioner also stated that there may have been some animosity toward her “on the part of the postmaster.”  Even if this is true, Petitioner has not demonstrated how this could have had any effect on the shortage found in her account in September 2002.  She suggests that, based on approximately $8,000 of unaccounted for stamps found during the September 2002 audit, the postmaster should have given her credit for an alleged debt of $1,852.11 that she paid in 1995 for a shortage found in May 1995.[1]  The postmaster replied to this same request on December 9, 2002, making reference to two other previous shortages in addition to the May 1995 shortage, and telling Petitioner that she must provide some documentation to show a correlation between the 1995 shortage and the stamps found in September 2002 (Answer, Ex. 1).

            The $1,852.11 debt was not the subject of this case, and there is no evidence in this record about that May 1995 shortage, other than the amount.  There is no basis, therefore, for directing that the $1,852.11 be returned to Petitioner.

            The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge

---

[1] This $8,000 of found stamps was discussed in the Final Decision.  They had apparently been in Petitioner’s vault, unknown to anyone and not counted as part of her unit reserve, for many years.  It was concluded that there was no basis for giving Petitioner credit for these stamps against the $2,154.43 shortage found in September 2002.