June 18, 2008

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                                       

                                                                                                                                              

KATHRYN R. YATES                                                                                                            

 

P.S. Docket No. AO 08-67

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         

Kathryn R. Yates
                                                                       

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     

Anthony D. Intoe
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
                                                                       

INITIAL DECISION   

            Petitioner, Kathryn Yates, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving a Notice of Intent to Collect Delinquent Debt from the Postal Service Accounting Service Center, dated February 14, 2008.  This Notice alleged an indebtedness of $5,624.91.

            Petitioner elected to have this case decided on written submissions.  Both parties were given time, including a 30-day extension, to file additional evidence and argument and both did so.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  Petitioner is a former Postal Service employee who transferred to the Social Security Administration, effective July 23, 2007.  (Petition).

2.  Petitioner’s last day of work for the Postal Service was July 20, 2007.  (Answer, Ex. 2).

3.  Due to administrative error, not the result of any action or wrongdoing by Petitioner, Petitioner continued to be paid by the Postal Service until September 7, 2007.  This amounted to seven additional weeks, pay periods 16-18 and week one of pay period 19.[1]  (Answer, Exs. 2-9).

4.  The gross pay Petitioner was paid by the Postal Service for these seven pay periods was $7,053.20.  The Postal Service Accounting Service Center calculated that the amount of the overpayment was $5,624.91 and issued Petitioner an invoice in that amount on October 31, 2007.  (Answer, Exs. 10-14).  

5.  Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3074, Request For Waiver of Claim For Erroneous Payment of Pay, on February 13, 2008.  That request was denied.  (Answer, Ex. 15; Petitioner’s supplement).

DECISION

            Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she was erroneously paid by the Postal Service, but argues that this error caused her other financial problems related to her health insurance and Thrift Savings Plan.  She further argues that she was not responsible for the error and that the Postal Service should be held accountable for such errors.  She also asserts that repaying the overpayment would cause her a financial hardship.

            Respondent’s position is simply that there is no dispute that Petitioner was overpaid the amount alleged and that an employee is not entitled to keep money that was erroneously paid to her.

            Much of Petitioner’s argument addresses what she perceives as the improper denial of her request for waiver.  Those issues are not relevant in this proceeding.  A Hearing Official in an Administrative Offset case has no authority to grant a waiver or to review the decisions of others who may have acted on a waiver request.

            As for her references to health insurance and Thrift Savings Plan problems, Petitioner may have encountered some administrative inconvenience, but she has not demonstrated that she suffered any financial losses. 

            As Petitioner has not disputed the overpayment or challenged Respondent’s calculation of the amount of the debt, and has not demonstrated any basis for relief from the debt, Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Respondent is entitled to collect $5,624.91.

            In the Answer, Respondent proposed that the debt be collected by withholding 15% of Petitioner’s disposable pay each pay period.  Our estimate is that this would take approximately 27 pay periods.  Petitioner did not propose an alternative repayment schedule, but she did submit some evidence to support her claim of financial hardship.  Based on that, and all the circumstances of this case, she is granted some relief.  Respondent may collect the debt at the rate of 12% of Petitioner’s disposable pay each pay period.  Our estimate is that this will spread the repayment over approximately 34 pay periods.

 

 

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge


[1] Respondent asserts that Petitioner also received her regular pay from the Social Security Administration, effective July 23, 2007, and she has not disputed that.