June 8, 2005

In the Matter of the Petition by

WILLIAM MEEHAN JR.

15 R Springvale Road

at

Croton On Hudson, NY 10520-1383

P.S. Docket No. AO 05-67

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Charles Scialla

453 Preakness Avenue #5

Paterson, NJ 07502-1121

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Valerie E. Rooks

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

1000 Westchester Avenue,

P.O. Box 9401

White Plains, NY 10610-9401

DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Petition is untimely. Petitioner filed a reply. The following findings of fact are based on the documents filed by both parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On May 13, 1999, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for $2,310, based on an audit shortage in the unit reserve account at West Nyack Station on May 5, 1999 (PS Exs. 2 and 3).

2. On July 16, 1999, Petitioner was issued another letter of debt determination for $2,335.60. This was based on the $2,310 debt noted above plus an additional $25.60 shortage in stamps shipped for destruction in April 1999. (PS Ex. 4).

3. Petitioner retired from the Postal Service on March 3, 2005 (PS Ex. 1).

4. On March 14, 2005, Petitioner received a terminal leave check with a notation that $2,310 had been deducted for indebtedness to the Postal Service (PS Ex. 7; document also attached to Petition).

5. Petitioner filed his Petition on May 2, 2005.

DECISION

Respondent argues that Petitioner was twice notified of the alleged debt in 1999 and took no action other than to request copies of certain records. Respondent also argues that, as a former employee, Petitioner was required to file his Petition within thirty (30) days of notification of the debt. Because Petitioner received the reduced terminal leave check on March 14, 2005, and did not file his Petition until May 2, 2005, Respondent contends that the Petition is untimely.

Under Debt Collection Act rules and procedures applicable to current Postal Service employees, an employee must file a Petition within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets. (39 C.F.R. §§961.3(e), 961.4; Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), sections 452.32, 452.336, 462.22, 462.32). Respondent has not specifically argued that this rule renders the Petition untimely. Such an argument would be futile because it is beyond question that neither of the two debt letters issued in 1999 purported to be, or met the requirements of, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

The rules and procedures applicable to Administrative Offset cases against former employees are found in 39 C.F.R. Part 966. Respondent is correct in asserting that there is a 30 day time limit for filing a Petition. However, the time does not start to run until the employee “has received a Notice from the Minneapolis Accounting Service Center (or its successor installation) informing him or her of the debt and an offset schedule to satisfy the debt and of the right to request reconsideration by the Postmaster/Installation Head;” and the employee has requested and received a written decision on reconsideration. 39 C.F.R. §966.4(a) and (b). Simply taking the money and notifying the employee that this has been done does not meet the notice requirement of 39 C.F.R. §966.4.

As Petitioner never was issued the Notice required to trigger his right to file a Petition under either the Debt Collection Act before he retired, or under Administrative Offset procedures after he retired, the Petition is not untimely. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

By July 1, 2005, Respondent shall either file an Answer addressing the merits of the alleged debt, or shall provide Petitioner an opportunity to request reconsideration of the alleged debt by his former installation head in accordance with 39 C.F.R. §966.4(a)(2) and (3). If Respondent chooses the second option, further action on the case shall be suspended and Respondent shall file a status report by July 1, 2005.

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge