April 30, 2007
In the Matter of the Petition
by
PATRICIA A. MCLEAN
P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-31
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Patricia A. McLean
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Martha T. Claye
Labor Relations Specialist
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION
ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Patricia McLean, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, dated January 16, 2007. This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $284.24 from Petitioner’s salary to recover unpaid health benefits premiums.
In a telephone conference with the parties on March 21, 2007, it was decided that this case would be decided on written submissions. The parties were given a timetable for filing additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petition and the Answer. Petitioner filed her own Declaration. Respondent filed a Declaration from Ms. Garcia, a Human Resources Specialist, and some additional documents. The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner has worked for the Postal Service since February 1989 and was enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) on March 11, 1989. (PS Supplement to Answer, Ex. 8).
2. Regulations governing the FEHBP are found in 5 C.F.R. Part 890. Part of the cost of an employee’s health insurance is paid by the employing agency and the remainder of the premium is paid by the employee through payroll deductions each pay period. An employee is deemed to incur an indebtedness to the United States in any pay period during which enrollment in the FEHBP continues but a deduction for, or direct payment of, the employee's share of the premium is not made.[1]
3. In 1996, action was initiated by the Postal Service to remove Petitioner from her employment, effective July 8, 1996. Petitioner challenged this action through the grievance process. Petitioner was placed in a Leave-Without-Pay (LWOP) status while action on the grievance was pending. She was in a non-pay status from June 8, 1996 through September 29, 1997. (PS Supplement to Answer, Exs. 1 and 3 (Garcia Declaration)).
4. On July 15, 1996, Ms. Garcia sent Petitioner a notice informing her that she could continue her FEHBP coverage for up to one year while in a non-pay status, but that she would have to pay for this coverage. The notice also told Petitioner that she could elect to cancel her coverage. Petitioner did not elect to cancel. (Garcia Declaration).
5. On July 18, 1997, the Postal Service Accounting Service Center generated a Standard Form 2810, Notice of Change in Health Benefits Enrollment, stating that Petitioner’s health benefits coverage was terminated, effective July 18, 1997, due to her being in a non-pay status for 365 days. Handwritten across the form are the words, “VOID – Employee Returned to Duty.” There is no evidence as to who wrote this, or when. (PS Supplement to Answer, Ex. 4).
6. On September 19, 1997, an arbitrator ruled in favor of Petitioner on her appeal of the removal action, and she was returned to duty, effective October 2, 1997. (PS Supplement to Answer, Ex. 2).
7. On December 10, 1997, the Postal Service Accounting Service Center generated an invoice showing that Petitioner owed $284.24 for health benefits premiums for pay periods 16-23 of 1997. These pay periods covered July 19 through November 7, 1997. (PS Supplement to Answer, Ex. 5, p. 2).
8. On September 20, 2006, Petitioner was issued a Letter of Demand for $284.24. The record does not disclose what, if anything, happened regarding this alleged debt during the intervening nine years. (PS Supplement to Answer, Ex. 5, p. 1).
9. A Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary
Offsets for the same amount was issued on
DECISION
Petitioner argues that she has no records pertaining to this matter because it happened ten years ago, and that she doesn’t remember what the status of her health benefits was during this time.
Respondent contends that the evidence shows that Petitioner had continuous health benefits coverage during her entire Postal Service employment and that she did not pay her share of the premiums, either by payroll deduction or otherwise, for pay periods 16-23 of 1997. Therefore, under the FEHBP regulations (see Finding #2), she incurred a debt for those premiums. Respondent also argues that Petitioner has failed to prove that she did not have health insurance coverage during the time in question. This misstates the burden of proof. It is Respondent’s burden to show that Petitioner was covered and that the premiums were not paid.
The issue here is whether the evidence submitted by Respondent proves what Respondent claims. There is no reason to doubt Ms. Garcia’s truthfulness when she states that a review of Petitioner’s records shows that Petitioner had health insurance coverage during the period she was on LWOP status, but it is not clear what records she reviewed, and the documents in this record do not answer all the questions about the specific debt Petitioner is charged with. Petitioner was in a non-pay status from June 8, 1996 through September 29, 1997 (see Finding #3). She is charged for health insurance premiums for July 19, 1997 through November 7, 1997 (see Finding #7). There is no evidence to explain why the charge is for those dates.
Another unanswered question involves the action to terminate Petitioner’s health benefits coverage one year after she entered into the non-pay status (see Findings #4 and 5). Ms. Garcia’s Declaration does not mention the SF 2810, but Respondent argues that the evidence shows that the termination action was “voided.” Without any testimony to show who made the notation on the SF 2810, when it was made, and its effect, the evidence really shows very little. The form purports to terminate Petitioner’s health insurance coverage on July 18, 1997. The arbitrator did not make his decision in her favor until September 19, 1997, and Petitioner was not returned to duty until October 2, 1997. It is not clear why we should assume that the termination of FEHBP coverage never took effect.
Also, since Petitioner returned to duty in a pay status on October 2, 1997, health benefits premiums could then have been deducted from her pay from that date forward. No pay records have been submitted to show that this was not done.
Respondent has failed to carry its burden of proof to demonstrate that Petitioner was covered by health insurance and did not pay the premiums during the dates alleged, i.e. pay periods 16-23 of 1997. The Petition is granted. Respondent may not collect $284.24 from Petitioner’s salary.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge