December 20, 2006

In the Matter of the Petition by

DEAN F. FAUCHER

P.S. Docket No. DCA 06-199

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Dean F. Faucher

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Joseph R. Lachance, Jr.

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

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 was given an opportunity to reply to the motion, but he did not do so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner, Dean Faucher, worked as a window clerk at the Winchester, New Hampshire Post Office. On May 14, 2004, Petitioner’s flexible credit account was audited and found to be short $415.87. (Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets – copy filed by Respondent.

2. On May 18, 2004, the Winchester Postmaster issued Petitioner a letter of demand for $415.87. Petitioner’s union did not file a grievance on his behalf and no further action was taken until March 2005, when a District Finance Office review determined that, based on banking discrepancies, the alleged debt should be reduced to $371.22. (Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

3. No further action was taken until September 14, 2006, when Petitioner’s current postmaster issued the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, stating the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $371.22 from Petitioner’s salary to recover the alleged debt discussed above. Petitioner received this Notice on September 25, 2006. (Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

4. Included with the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets were a Statement of Debtor’s Rights and Responsibilities, and the Rules of Procedure Governing Hearings Under the Debt Collection Act. Both of these documents clearly state the requirement for filing a Petition within fifteen days. (Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.

5. Although the Petition is dated October 8, 2006, it was postmarked October 31, 2006, and was received here on November 3, 2006. It is the long-standing practice of this office that a pleading is considered to be “filed” when it is placed in the mail. In this case that was October 31, 2006. (Petition.

DECISION

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, and Respondent authorized to implement the proposed offset from the employee’s pay, 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.

There is no dispute over the fact that Petitioner received the Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on September 25, 2006, or that he did not file his Petition until October 31, 2006. Petitioner has made no claim that he did not understand the requirement for filing the Petition within fifteen days, that he was misled or confused in any way by any action of Respondent, or that he was unable for any reason to file a timely Petition.

The Petition was filed approximately three weeks late, and Petitioner has not shown that the late filing should be excused. Petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to a hearing under the Debt Collection Act. 39 C.F.R. §961.10. Respondent may collect $371.22 from Petitioner’s salary.

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge