July 9, 2007             

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                                                                                                                                                    

SCOTT M. FELDT                                                                  

                                     

P.S. Docket No. DCA 07-80 and 81

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Scott M. Feldt                                                                       

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Martha T. Claye

Labor Relations Specialist

United States Postal Service

8401 Boeing Drive

El Paso, TX  79910-9998

 

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Scott Feldt, filed two Petitions for Hearing after receiving two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from his postmaster, dated February 22, 2007.  These Notices stated the Postal Service’s intention to withhold $370.00 and $433.84, a total of $803.84, from Petitioner’s salary to recover salary advances paid to him in 2003.[1]

Because it did not appear from the information filed with the Petitions and the Answer that an oral hearing was necessary, and because Petitioner rejected our attempts to set up a telephone conference to discuss how these cases would be processed, an Order dated May 4, 2007 directed that the cases would be decided on written submissions.  The parties were given a timetable for filing additional evidence and argument, beyond that filed with the Petitions and the Answer.  Both parties filed additional arguments and supporting documents, including sworn statements of witnesses.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  On July 18, 2003, while working at the Summerville, South Carolina Post Office, Petitioner was given a salary advance of $433.84 because he did not receive his regular paycheck.  On August 1, 2003, Petitioner received another salary advance of $380.00 because of an error on his paycheck.  On or about August 15, 2003, Petitioner left South Carolina for a new Postal Service job in El Paso, Texas.  (Petitions; Answer; Feldt Declaration; Mrs. Feldt Declaration; PS Ex. 2).

            2.  Financial records at the Summerville Post Office show that Petitioner received the pay advances noted above, but do not show that the advances were repaid.  (Tomlin Declaration; PS Ex. 2).

3.  In August 2005 Petitioner received invoices dated August 15, 2005, asserting that neither of the salary advances had been repaid.  (Invoices attached to Petitions and to Answer).

            4.  On September 19, 2006, Petitioner was issued Letters of Demand for each of the two alleged debts.  On February 22, 2007, he was issued the two Notices of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets.  (Letters and Notices attached to Petitions and to Answer).

            5.  Immediately following his receipt of the invoices in 2005, and again following receipt of the Letters of Demand in 2006, Petitioner asserted that he had already repaid the salary advances.  He sought assistance from his union representative and his current supervisor in an attempt to research records.  (Petition and notes attached; Petitioner’s letter, October 3, 2006; Feldt Declaration). 

DECISION

            There is no dispute that Petitioner received the two pay advances noted above.  The only issue is whether he paid them back.  He insists that he did, and presents his own sworn statement and that of his wife, describing in some detail the circumstances as to how and when he made the repayments before he left South Carolina.

            Respondent’s position is that, if Petitioner had repaid the salary advances, the financial records maintained by the Summerville Post Office would reflect those repayments.  The fact that they do not, Respondent argues, proves that Petitioner has not repaid the debts.

            Were it not for the long delay by the Postal Service in asserting these debts, we would expect Petitioner to produce receipts, or a statement from the person to whom he claims to have made the repayments.  Because of the delay, however, and the fact that Petitioner moved across the country shortly after these events, it is not unreasonable that he is unable to do so.  Further, while it is difficult for Respondent to have to prove a “negative,” all Respondent’s evidence shows is that it has no record that Petitioner made the repayments.  In the face of the sworn statements from Petitioner and his wife, and all the surrounding circumstances, Respondent’s burden is not met by merely showing no record of repayment.

            To rule against Petitioner in this case would require a finding that both Petitioner and his wife have submitted false affidavits.  This record does not provide a basis for making that finding.  The Petitions are granted.  Respondent may not collect $803.84 from Petitioner’s salary.

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge

 

 


[1] A third Petition (P. S. Docket No. DCA 07-82) was dismissed on April 27, 2007, based on the Postal Service withdrawing its claim for the debt alleged in that case.