Edwan Bonet-Luiggi, DAB CR6778 (2025)

DECISION

On September 13, 2016, during an open enrollment period, Petitioner, Edwan Bonet-Luiggi, changed his enrollment in the Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) from Standard (Option A)1  to include Additional coverage (Option B) at 5 times his pay plus Family coverage (Option C) with 5 multipliers.  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Electronic File (E-File) Doc. No. 4a.  Respondent, the Social Security Administration (SSA), however, failed to deduct the additional premiums between 2018 and 2025.  SSA Brief (Br.) at 2-3.  After Petitioner notified SSA of the discrepancy between his election and the premiums being paid, SSA notified Petitioner that he retroactively owed the unpaid premiums.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1a.  Petitioner requested a hearing to dispute the alleged debt.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1.

Page 2

In this proceeding, Petitioner never disputed his request for increased FEGLI coverage.  Petitioner never explicitly disputed the amount of the debt, though he generally questioned its accuracy.  Petitioner did not provide any calculations to demonstrate an alternate amount of owed FEGLI premiums.  Instead, Petitioner argued he should not be responsible for payment due to SSA’s error and, requiring him to pay, would be against principles of equity and due process.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1 at 2. 

As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Petitioner was covered by FEGLI, and his increased optional elections, effective October 1, 2017, yet the proper premium amounts were not deducted from Petitioner’s pay.  I find that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government, under Debt ID F51471157806, in the amount of $4,469.50 and that SSA may offset his salary to recover this amount.  

I also find that Petitioner’s argument concerning his debt was not baseless and was not made with the intent to delay SSA’s collection of the debt.  Based on these findings, SSA should enter into a mutually acceptable repayment schedule.  If this is not possible, SSA’s deductions from Petitioner’s salary may not exceed 15 percent of Petitioner’s “disposable pay.”2  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1). 

I also find that Petitioner’s request for waiver cannot be addressed in this decision, as such a request is beyond my purview.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1).  The record indicates that the Petitioner’s request for waiver was already denied, and any appeal of that denial belongs with the SSA Office of General Counsel.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 6. 

I.  Procedural History

On July 16, 2025, SSA sent Petitioner a letter stating he owed a debt to SSA in the amount of $4,469.50, due to an overpayment resulting from retroactive deductions for his unpaid FEGLI premiums.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1a.  The letter advised Petitioner that he could request a hearing to dispute the “administrative determination of the existence or amount of the debt” within 15 days of the date of the letter.  Id. at 9. 

On July 31, 2025, Petitioner timely submitted a request for hearing to SSA via electronic mail (Email), challenging the debt determination.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1.  In the request, Petitioner argued that such an “unexpected and significant retroactive charge will cause a

Page 3

severe financial burden and is the result of an error that occurred entirely within the agency's internal processes.”  Id. at 2.

On August 6, 2025, SSA forwarded the request for hearing to the DAB’s Civil Remedies Division (CRD).  Id.  CRD docketed the request under the above-captioned case number and assigned it to me for adjudication.  Id., DAB E-File Doc. No. 1a. 

On August 7, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order, and Notice of Informal Conference or Meeting (Prehearing Order).  DAB E-File Doc. No. 2.  In the Prehearing Order, I outlined the procedures governing this case, established prehearing deadlines, and scheduled an oral hearing, if necessary, for August 27, 2025.  Id. at 4, ¶ 7. 

Both parties timely filed their respective briefs and pre-hearing exchanges, that each included a motion for summary judgment.  On August 21, 2025, SSA filed a Motion to Supplement the Record, a Proposed Supplemental Exhibit List, and an attachment identified as SSA Ex. 4, reflecting an alleged additional identified debt of $112.50.  DAB E-File Doc. Nos. 8, 8a-8b.  

In an August 25, 2025 Order, I denied SSA’s Motion to Supplement the Record on the following bases: SSA has not issued a debt letter to Petitioner for an additional debt (“second debt”), and SSA has not given Petitioner the opportunity to request a hearing concerning the existence or amount of the “second debt.”  DAB E-File Doc. No. 11.  Consequently, I excluded the corresponding proposed SSA Ex. 4 (Form D2640) from the record.  Id.  I also gave SSA a deadline of September 3, 2025, to file a notice stating whether it plans to issue a new demand to Petitioner for payment of the $112.50 alleged “second debt” and, if so, whether it will be a new notice that encompasses the debt demanded in the July 16, 2025 notice or if it would only be for the additional amount.  Id.  

On September 3, 2025, SSA filed a response stating that “a new and separate debt notice will be issued for the additional debt not accounted for in the debt notice issued on July 16, 2025.”  DAB E-File Doc. No. 12. 

Accordingly, the administrative record is now closed, and this case is ready for a decision. 

Page 4

II.  Issues

I am only authorized to decide the following issues in this case: 

1) Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government (i.e. the existence of the debt); and

2) If so, whether $4,469.50 is the correct amount of the debt owed (i.e. the amount of the debt). 

See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).3 

III.  Jurisdiction

The statute authorizing these proceedings specifies that the head of an agency may appoint an administrative law judge to adjudicate an employee’s appeal of a debt determination.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2), see also 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(d) (definition of Hearing official), (i)(1).  SSA maintains an interagency agreement with the DAB which authorizes SSA to refer hearing requests in employee debt cases to CRD administrative law judges for adjudication.  See Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009), Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 (2006). 

IV.  Admission of Evidence

On August 18, 2025, SSA filed its pre-hearing brief, a proposed exhibit list, a list of two proposed witnesses and three exhibits.  DAB E-File Doc. Nos. 7, 7a-7e. (SSA Exhibits (Exs.) 1 – 3).  On August 11, 2025, prior to SSA filing its pre-hearing exchange, Petitioner filed three unmarked exhibits consisting of an email exchange with an SSA Human Resources Representative, FEGLI Form OMB No. 3206-0230 dated September 13, 2016, and a May 13, 2025 letter to Petitioner from a SSA Human Resources Specialist.  (DAB E-File Doc. Nos. 4, 4a, 4b.), and on August 14, 2025, Petitioner also filed another unmarked exhibit (DAB E-File Doc. No. 6).  I will mark as Petitioner (P) Exhibits (Exs.) 1- 4, respectively, and admit them into the administrative record as follows: 

P. Ex. 1: FEGLI Email Exchange with SSA HR Representative (Mar - May 2025) 

Page 5

P. Ex. 2: FEGLI Form - Sep 2016 
P. Ex. 3: FEGLI Request Decision Memo – May 13, 2025 
P. Ex. 4: Notice of Waiver Decision (Denial) - August 14, 2025

On August 18, 2025, inclusive of its prehearing exchange and brief (DAB E-File Doc. Nos. 7, 7a – 7e), SSA submitted the following three properly marked proposed exhibits, which I also admit into the administrative record as follows:  

SSA. Ex. 1: Standard Form 50 (SF50) 2017 FEGLI CHG 
SSA. Ex. 2: Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS) History 
SSA. Ex. 3: Email Correspondence Re 2016 FEGLI Life Insurance Open Season

For the reasons already discussed, I will not admit Form D2640 reflecting Petitioner’s alleged additional debt of $112.50 into the record, marked as SSA. Ex. 4.  See DAB E-File Doc. No. 8b.  

V.  Decision on the Written Record

In the Prehearing Order, I scheduled an informal conference/meeting for August 27, 2025, if one was necessary.  However, I also directed the parties to state in their prehearing submissions why an informal conference or meeting was necessary to the adjudication of this case.  Prehearing Order ¶ 7.  Neither party stated in their submissions that an in-person conference/meeting was necessary and both parties sought summary judgment.  In salary offset cases, I may conduct either a “paper hearing” (a decision based on a review of the available written record) or an “oral hearing” (a decision following a non-adversarial in-person hearing or conference).  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3).  If the case can be resolved without an oral hearing, then the case may be adjudicated as a “paper hearing”.  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(ii). 

Respondent SSA submitted a Witness List identifying two proposed witnesses and stating what each of these witnesses will testify to, “if called upon” to do so.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 7e.  Petitioner Edwan Bonet-Luiggi did not identify a proposed witness.  As noted above, the parties submitted their respective briefs and pre-hearing exchanges.  DAB E-File Doc. Nos. 4, 4a-4b, 6, 7, 7a-7e, 9, 10, 12.  Neither party has otherwise stated why an oral hearing is necessary in this case.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1)(C) (requiring a statement in the hearing request as to why the matter cannot be decided without an in-person hearing). 

Based on my review of the record, I conclude that the decision as to the validity and amount of the alleged debt does not turn on issues of credibility or veracity.  After reviewing the parties’ written submissions, I find that a paper hearing is appropriate and that an oral

Page 6

hearing is not necessary.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(3)(iii). Therefore, this decision is based on a review of the available written record, including all filings and evidence submitted by the parties. 

VI. Findings of Facts

Petitioner is a current employee of SSA.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1 at 2.  On September 13, 2016, Petitioner submitted Form OMB No. 3206-0230, Life Insurance Election, to SSA, in which he requested that his life insurance under the FEGLI Program be changed from Basic coverage (Option A) to Basic (Option A) plus additional coverage (Option B) at 5 times his pay plus Family coverage (Option C) with 5 multipliers.  P. Ex. 2.  

On March 7, 2025, Petitioner contacted SSA’s Human Resources regarding a status update about his FEGLI coverage selection.  P. Ex. 1.  Petitioner noted that even though his electronic Official Personnel File (eOPF) included a FEGLI election form showing he had requested both Options B and C, his Government Retirement and Benefits (GRB) records reflected that he had only Basic FEGLI coverage.  Id., P. Ex. 2.  In response, an SSA Human Resources representative acknowledged that an error occurred, and Petitioner’s election requested during the 2016 Open Season had not been processed.  P. Ex. 1.  In a subsequent notice sent to Petitioner on May 13, 2025, an SSA Human Resources representative also advised that “in accordance with . . . the Code of Federal Regulations (section 5 CFR 870), we must process your FEGLI enrollment with the effective date of 10/1/2017.”  P. Ex. 3.  The Petitioner was further notified that the Department of Interior would inform him of any payments due.  Id. 

On July 16, 2025, SSA sent Petitioner a debt notification letter stating he owed SSA a debt of $4,469.50 due to the FEGLI oversight error, that has now been corrected.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1a at 1-3, 10-13.  The letter advised Petitioner that he could request a hearing to dispute the “existence or amount of the debt” by submitting a written request to SSA within 15 days.  Id. at 9.  The letter further stated that if Petitioner believes “collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience or not in the best of the United States,” he could request a waiver within three years.  Id. at 8.  Enclosed with the letter was a breakdown of the total underpayments by year based on the payroll audit.  Id. at 14.  

In response to the debt notification letter, Petitioner timely requested a hearing.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1.  SSA forwarded Petitioner’s hearing request to the DAB for adjudication 6 days after it was submitted and this proceeding followed.  Id. 

Page 7

The record indicates that Petitioner requested a waiver, which was denied.  P. Ex. 4.  That notice informs Petitioner that he has the right to appeal the waiver denial with the Office of General Counsel, Office of General Law.  Id.  E

VII.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

1) Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment. 

I find that Petitioner made no premium contributions towards his FEGLI additional coverage for (Option B) at 5 times his pay plus Family coverage (Option C) with 5 multipliers between the effective date of October 1, 2017, through May 13, 2025, resulting in an overpayment of his salary of $4,469.50.  Although the overpayment was caused by SSA’s error in not processing the request, I find that Petitioner is liable for the resulting debt.  Therefore, I conclude that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government.  

The validity of the debt turns on whether Petitioner had requested that his life insurance under the FEGLI Program be changed from Standard coverage (Option A) to Standard (Option A) plus Additional coverage (Option B) at 5 times his pay plus Family coverage (Option C) with 5 multipliers.  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(1).  The record reflects, and Petitioner has acknowledged that he authorized this change on September 13, 2016.  See P. Ex. 1, P. Ex. 2.  In fact, it was Petitioner that initiated contact with SSA Human Resources regarding the discrepancy between his election for FEGLI coverage and the information contained in his GRB on March 7, 2025 when he reported that, although his eOPF included a FEGLI election form showing he had requested both Options B and C, his GRB records showed only Basic (Standard) coverage.  P. Ex. 1. 

SSA’s Human Resources then confirmed that an error occurred and Petitioner’s election during the 2016 Open Season had not been processed, though Petitioner remained covered, and consequently, Petitioner had only been paying for Standard coverage instead of the additional extended coverage he had requested.   See id.  

As such, Petitioner contributed less than the required deduction of his salary into the FEGLI Program until the error was revealed in March 2025, and subsequently corrected in May 2025.  SSA Ex. 2, P. Ex. 1.  While Petitioner was not at fault for the erroneous oversight by SSA, the regulations state that any FEGLI payment which should have been deducted from an employee’s pay constitutes an overpayment that is subject to collection by the agency from the employee.  5 C.F.R. § 841.505(d).  Therefore, I find that Petitioner received an overpayment during the applicable timeframe for which he is liable.  

Page 8

Petitioner asserts several arguments challenging the validity of the debt.  However, I do not find his arguments persuasive.  For example, Petitioner argues that all he requested from Human Resources was for his coverage options to be updated, stating “I don’t want any retroactive premiums to be paid if I did not have the service.” P. Ex. 1 at 1.  He also asserted this argument in his response to SSA’s pre-hearing brief, stating that he acted with due diligence by bringing this error to Respondent’s attention, as “It was Respondent—not Petitioner—who failed to properly process the election and collect the appropriate premiums for more than seven years.  To now retroactively assess thousands of dollars in premiums is against equity and good conscience.”  DAB E-File Doc. No. 9 (Response to SSA's Pre-Hearing Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment). 

Petitioner further claims that the regulations support his argument, challenging SSA’s citation of the regulations, by stating: 

Respondent cites 5 C.F.R. §§ 870.103(a), 870.401(f), and related OPM guidance in support of retroactive correction.  However, these provisions do not mandate that employees bear financial responsibility for premiums that were never properly deducted due to agency negligence.  Rather, they obligate the employing office to ensure proper contributions are remitted to OPM.  Courts and administrative bodies have consistently held that employees should not be penalized for agency administrative errors where the employee neither contributed nor benefitted improperly from the mistake [GAO decision B-219122 (January 22, 1986)].  This case clearly demonstrates that when the fault lies with the agency's processing systems, not the employee, equity favors relief rather than retroactive penalty.  

Id. at 2.  

However, the language in 5 C.F.R. § 870.103(a) and (b) explicitly states:  

(a) The employing office may make corrections of administrative errors regarding coverage or changes in coverage.  Retroactive corrections are subject to the provisions of § 870.401(f).  
(b) OPM may order correction of an error after reviewing evidence that it would be against equity and good conscience not to do so. 

5 C.F.R. § 870.103(a), (b).  As such, notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument, 5 C.F.R. § 870.103(a) does support Respondent’s position that Petitioner owes a valid debt, and that the debt must be collected by SSA, including retroactively, if not waived, as is in this case.  

Page 9

Further, Petitioner also cites to 5 C.F.R. § 870.401 (f), in support of his argument that he should not pay the debt, which states: 

When an agency withholds less than or none of the proper amount of Basic life insurance deductions from an individual's pay, annuity, or compensation, the agency must submit an amount equal to the sum of the uncollected deduction and any applicable agency contributions required under 5 U.S.C. 8708 to OPM for deposit in the Employees' Life Insurance Fund. 

5 C.F.R. § 870.401(f).  Here again, I find that the cited regulation is contrary to Petitioner’s arguments against repayment of the debt.  When SSA made the FEGLI coverage correction in May 2025 to offset the amounts that should have been deducted from Petitioner’s salary starting from October 1, 2017, the adjustment resulted in a total outstanding debt of $4,469.50, from the uncollected deductions for his FEGLI premiums, which SSA then submitted to OPM.  

With regard to its denial of Petitioner’s request for a waiver of the debt, SSA argues that:  

Generally, an employee is considered at fault and waiver is precluded when the employee knows, or reasonably should know, that an erroneous payment had occurred and fails to bring the matter to the attention of appropriate officials. 

The Deductions section of your Leave & Earnings Statement (LES) clearly reflects your FEGLI premiums, and your certified Life Insurance Election Form and corresponding Notice of Personnel Action are stored in your electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF). 

P. Ex. 4. 

Further, SSA reiterates that: 

The Deductions section of your Leave & Earnings Statement (LES) clearly reflects your FEGLI premiums, and your certified Life Insurance Election Form and corresponding Notice of Personnel Action are stored in your electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF).  A timely review of these records would have indicated that there was a discrepancy between the coverage you elected and the premiums that were

Page 10

deducted from your salary.  Although an administrative error caused the overpayment, you had a duty to examine your LES to determine whether your FEGLI deductions were accurate and to report any discrepancies.  

Id.  

Although SSA should have processed Petitioner’s FEGLI life insurance change effective October 1, 2017, SSA argues that its handbook, which Petitioner has access to as an SSA employee explicitly supports SSA’s position that, notwithstanding its oversight, it is Petitioner’s responsibility to exercise the required due diligence in checking his LES to confirm that his monthly deductions are accurate.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 7.  Here, Petitioner did find the administrative error, albeit seven years later.  

Finally, Petitioner contends that SSA retroactively assessing payments at this juncture “is against equity and good conscience” especially because he acted quickly and in good faith as soon as he noticed the discrepancy.  As noted above, the only issues before me are the validity of the existence of the debt and amount of the debt.  The “equity and good conscience” argument could be raised by Petitioner in his request, or now appeal, of a waiver.  The Petitioner’s request for waiver was denied and any appeal would be considered by SSA’s Office of General Counsel – General Law, rather than me.  P. Ex. 4.  My determination is based on a factual determination of the existence and validity of the debt, rather than equitable considerations.  

Unfortunately, Petitioner’s mistaken and reasonable belief that his FEGLI designation was processed at the effective date of the time he made the selection request does not make it so.  Ultimately, I must apply the law as it is written and, pursuant to the applicable regulations, SSA’s error resulted in an overpayment for which Petitioner is responsible.  5 C.F.R. § 841.505(d). 

I understand Petitioner’s frustration at being required to repay a debt retroactively, particularly one that resulted from SSA’s error and went unnoticed for so many years.  However, I have no discretion under the governing statute or regulations to waive or reduce a valid debt, regardless of how the debt originated.  Therefore, while I sympathize with Petitioner’s situation, I am unable to provide any relief on this basis. 

2) The total amount of the debt is $4,469.50. 

Based on the evidence in the record, I conclude that the total debt for Debt ID F51471157806 owed by Petitioner is $4,469.50, exclusive of any accrued payments,

Page 11

interest, or late fees.  This amount represents the difference between Petitioner’s contributions under FEGLI for the Standard/Basic coverage option and what he should have contributed under Basic coverage (Option A) plus additional coverage (Option B) at 5 times his pay plus Family coverage (Option C) with 5 multipliers, as documented in the yearly breakdown included with the debt notification letter.  DAB E-File Doc. No. 1a. Petitioner acknowledges the existence of the debt and provides no alternate calculations.  SSA’s worksheet satisfactorily itemizes the amount of the debt.  Id. at 10-15. 

VIII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government in the amount of $4,469.50. 

This is the final agency decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).