Frank Anthony Cirillo, DAB CR6816 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Frank A. Cirillo, was hired as an economist by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement, effective October 24, 2021.  At the time of his hire, due to the COVID emergency, Mr. Cirillo was approved to work remotely while having an official duty station (ODS) in Washington, D.C.  When HHS began phasing employees back to the office, Petitioner was permitted to continue working remotely from various alternative duty stations1 (ADS) in Florida, where he remains to date. 

On August 20, 2025, Petitioner’s personnel file was corrected to reflect Petitioner’s ODS as St. Augustine, Florida, instead of Washington, D.C.  The change in ODS, effective May 4, 2025, updated Petitioner’s locality pay adjustment rate from a Washington, D.C. rate to a Rest of U.S. rate.  The change in rate prompted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the payroll servicing agent for HHS, to notify Petitioner on October 18, 2025, that he was overpaid during pay periods ending 2025-05-17 through 2025-08-23 due to a “Personnel Transaction.”  The notice stated the gross debt was

Page 2

$4,414.24 and the net debt $1,529.99 for this period.2  Petitioner timely requested a hearing to dispute the alleged debt. 

In this proceeding, Petitioner challenges both the existence and amount of the assessed debt, argues he was exempt from the return to in-person-work mandate, and he should not be responsible for a pay error if HHS failed to update the Notice of Personnel Action (SF-50) form.  HHS maintains that a change in locality pay was appropriate based on the Petitioner’s ODS, resulting in the debt. 

As discussed below, I agree with HHS that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government under debt ZPHY100425008240 in the amount of $1,384.27, related to a change in Petitioner’s ODS.  For the reasons set forth below, I affirm HHS’s determination. 

I.  Background and Procedural History

Petitioner was hired on October 24, 2021, as an economist with an ODS in Washington, D.C.  He was permitted to work remotely due to the ongoing COVID emergency.  HHS Exhibits (Exs.) 1 at 29; Ex. 3 at 1. 

On February 9, 2022, HHS announced a decision to start phasing employees back to the office beginning in April 2022.  HHS Pre-Hearing Exchange (PHE) at 2-3.  On October 17, 2022, Petitioner executed a telework agreement stating he would be working from his residence in Sarasota, Florida.  HHS Ex. 2 at 1.  The telework agreement stated, “[for] employees who are on 100% telework, outside of the geographic location of their official duty station [], the employee’s ADS will serve as their ODS.”  Id. 

On February 1, 2023, Petitioner executed a Workplace Flexibility Agreement (WFA) with an ADS in St. Petersburg, Florida, and on September 6, 2023, Petitioner executed another WFA with another address in St. Petersburg, Florida.  Id. at 7-14. 

At the beginning of 2025, the Trump administration directed all federal employees to return to the office full time by Presidential Action on January 20, 2025.  On April 22, 2025, Petitioner received an exemption to the return to office mandate in the form of an email from the Director of the Division of Data Analytics and Information Management.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Number (No.) 1a at 22-23 (Hearing Package). 

On August 7, 2025, Petitioner executed another telework agreement indicating his ADS was in St. Augustine, Florida.  The August 7, 2025 HHS Telework Agreement only included two options: “Situational/Ad Hoc Telework” or “Long-Term Telework,” with Petitioner electing “Situational/Ad Hoc” under protest.  Id. at 32-35.  This agreement also

Page 3

indicated Petitioner worked fully remote from the St. Augustine, Florida location and that the ODS was based on the location of Petitioner’s ADS.  Id. 

On August 20, 2025, an SF-50 was processed to reflect an individual cash award for Petitioner effective August 17, 2025.  HHS Ex. 1 at 1.  This was the first SF-50 that corrected Petitioner’s ODS to Florida, using the address listed on the August 7, 2025 telework agreement.  The updated SF-50 changed Petitioner’s locality adjustment to a Rest of U.S. rate.  Id. 

The change in locality pay triggered DFAS to determine Petitioner was overpaid for eight pay periods, starting May 4, 2025, and ending August 23, 2025.  Hearing Package at 4.  On October 18, 2025, DFAS issued a debt letter to Petitioner.  Id.  As a result, an alleged gross debt of $4,412.24 was owed by Petitioner, with a net amount of $1,529.99 after offsets, to include any refundable portions of the taxes, benefits and other deductions included in the original.  Id.  Petitioner timely appealed the determination, and the matter was assigned to me for adjudication.  Id.; CRD Dkt. No. 1. 

On November 17, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgement, Prehearing Order, and Scheduling of Conference.  CRD Dkt. No. 2 (Prehearing Order).  On December 1, 2025, I issued an Order granting a Consent Motion for Extension of Time giving the parties a one-week extension of all deadlines, including the decision due date.  CRD Dkt. No. 9. 

HHS filed a Preliminary Statement (HHS PHE) and 6 exhibits (HHS Exs. 1-6).3  Petitioner, through his non-attorney representative, filed a Preliminary Statement (Pet. PHE) and 7 exhibits (Pet. Exs. 1-7). 

Upon reviewing the parties’ submissions, I issued an Order on December 15, 2025, cancelling the oral hearing.  CRD Dkt. No. 16.  On December 29, 2025, I issued an Order directing HHS to clarify the amount of the alleged debt by December 31, 2025, and stated that Petitioner may file any objections to HHS’s calculations by January 3, 2026.  HHS filed a timely response on December 29, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Nos. 19, 20.  On January 7, 2026, Petitioner filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a one-week extension to file a response to HHS’s response to the December 29, 2025 Order.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 21.  Petitioner’s motion did not explicitly request an extension of the decision deadline pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(d)(1).  On January 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Revised Consent Motion for Extension of time.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 23.  The revised motion made an unclear request for extending all deadlines.  I, therefore, deny Petitioner’s motion and revised motion since granting the extension would have allowed 

Page 4

for a response after the decision deadline and the regulations are clear that I can only extend a deadline on Petitioner’s request. 

Accordingly, I find the record is ripe for a decision on the written record. 

II.  Issues

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

2.  If so, whether Petitioner’s total gross debt of $4,412.24, and net amount of $1,384.27 was properly determined. 

III.  Jurisdiction

The issues identified above are the only appealable issues regarding a salary overpayment matter.  5 U.S.C § 5514(a)(2)(D); 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.4(a)(7), 33.6(d)(2). 

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 45 C.F.R. §§ 33.2 and 33.7(a)(2) (definition of Hearing official). 

IV.  Admission of Evidence

HHS’s complete record is comprised of six proposed exhibits.  Five exhibits were timely submitted with its Preliminary Statement, and a final proposed exhibit (HHS Ex. 6) was submitted after their filing deadline but without objection by Petitioner. 

Petitioner provided eleven exhibits (3.1 to 3.11) in support of their Hearing Package.  See CRD Dkt. No. 1a at 1-2.  Petitioner also emailed the assigned Attorney Advisor several times either directly or to include him in communications with the Office of Human Resources (OHR) Service Desk.  These communications were uploaded to the docket.  See CRD Dkt. Nos. 7, 7a-7f, 10, 10a, 11, 11a-11c. 

In support of their Preliminary Statement, Petitioner referenced five exhibits from their Hearing Package (Ex. 1 is 3.1, Ex. 2 is 3.3, Ex. 3 is 3.8, Ex. 4 is 3.9, and Ex. 5 is 3.11), and two docket entries (Ex. 6 is CRD Dkt. No. 14, and Ex. 7 is CRD Dkt. Nos. 11, 11a, 11b, 11c). 

Neither party objected to the proposed exhibits.  Finding no objections, I admit HHS Exs. 1-6 and Pet. Exs. 1-7 into the administrative record. 

Page 5

V.  Decision on the Written Record

In the Prehearing Order, the parties were notified that the regulations allow for an oral hearing “if the hearing official determines that the matter cannot be resolved by review of documentary evidence alone because an issue of credibility or veracity is involved.”  45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(2)(i)-(iii); Prehearing Order at 5.  The Prehearing Order scheduled an oral hearing/conference for December 10, 2025,4 if one was necessary, and directed the parties to state in their prehearing submissions why a hearing was necessary to the adjudication of this case.5  Prehearing Order at 5. 

In the prehearing exchange submissions, neither party requested an oral hearing nor stated an intent to call a witness in this matter.  See CRD Dkt. Nos. 12 at 12; 13 at 4.  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 and, therefore, I find that a paper hearing is appropriate and that an oral hearing is not necessary. See 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(2).  As such, this decision is based on a review of the available written record, including all filings and evidence submitted by the parties. 

VI. Findings of Fact

Petitioner is a current ACF employee working as an economist.  When Petitioner’s employment began at ACF, he worked remotely with a Washington, D.C. locality rate, pursuant to COVID emergency protocol.  Petitioner remained a remote, full-time telework employee, even though HHS announced a decision to start a phased return to the office in 2022.6  HHS Exs. 1 and 2.  Consistent with President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Presidential Action “Return to In-Person Work,”7 Petitioner was aware he was expected to work in Washington, D.C. effective April 28, 2025.  Hearing Package at 3.  Petitioner received email notice from his supervisor on April 22, 2025, indicating that the 

Page 6

Data Team, where Petitioner was assigned, was exempt from the return to office mandate and he had “the authorization to work from home in [his] Florida location.”  Id. at 22.  The following day, Petitioner confirmed his plan to remain in Florida.  Id.  On August 7, 2025, an updated HHS Telework Agreement (HHS-990-2 form) listed Petitioner’s Alternative Worksite in St. Petersburg, Florida.  HHS Ex. 2 at 15-18. 

On September 24, 2025, Élan Darlington, Director of the Division of Office Operations at ACF, emailed Petitioner for confirmation of his address of record.  Hearing Package at 51-52.  Petitioner replied that he was residing in St. Augustine, Florida, since May 1, 2025.  Id. at 50-51.  On September 25, 2025, Petitioner was informed that he,

“may continue to work remotely if you are in group C and until group C receives the guidance on where/when to report.  If working remotely, your duty location should reflect the locality of your home address, not Washington, DC.  When you relocated your locality pay should have been adjusted.  You’ve been paid at the Washington, D.C. locality while living in Florida; the Washington, D.C. pay is higher, so I am afraid you will receive a debt letter to repay the increased locality pay you’ve been receiving.” 

Id. at 47.  DFAS issued an overpayment demand letter to Petitioner on October 18, 2025 (debt letter), informing him that he was overpaid during the pay periods ending May 17, 2025, through August 23, 2025, due to a “Personnel Transaction.”  Id. at 4-8.  This letter informed Petitioner he owed a gross debt amount of $4,414.24, reduced to $1,529.99, after offsets to include any refundable portions of the taxes, benefits, and other deductions.  Id. at 4.  HHS subsequently corrected the offset amount to $3,007.41, leaving the net debt amount as $1,384.27.  CRD Dkt. No. 20. 

The debt letter also advised Petitioner that he could request a hearing to dispute the “validity of the debt” within 30 calendar days by filing the HHS Form 710 (Request for Waiver of Overpayment or Hearing) with Petitioner’s OPDIV OHR designated official.  Id. at 5. 

Petitioner filed a timely HHS Form 710 and a Hearing Package on November 3, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Nos. 1, 1a.  Petitioner requested “a hearing disputing the existence of the debt and or [sic] the amount of the debt owed to HHS . . . .”  CRD Dkt. No. 1 at 2.  HHS forwarded Petitioner’s hearing request to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) for adjudication on November 6, 2025.  CRD Dkt. No. 1b. 

Page 7

VII.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

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

I find that from the pay periods ending 2025-05-17 through 2025-08-23, Petitioner was overpaid due to the wrong locality pay being applied to his wages. 

The validity of the debt turns on what is considered an employee’s ODS for purposes of calculating their pay.  By regulation, an agency must determine an employee’s locality pay based on the employee’s “official worksite.”  5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b)(2).  An employee’s official worksite is “the location of an employee’s position of record where the employee regularly performs his or her duties.”  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(a)(1).  For an employee covered by a telework agreement who does not report to the “regular worksite for the employee’s position of record” at least twice each biweekly pay period, “the employee’s official worksite is the location of the employee’s telework site.”  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(d)(1), (3). 

Petitioner argues that he was legally entitled to the Washington, D.C. locality pay (Pet. PHB at 3) and that Petitioner would have “followed through will [sic] my plans to go back to the Washington, D.C. office.”  Hearing Request at 20.  I disagree with Petitioner’s arguments as I explain in turn. 

Petitioner was not entitled to the Washington, D.C. locality pay.  It is undisputed that, from at least May 1, 2025, Petitioner resided in, and worked from, Saint Augustine, Florida.  Pet. PHE at 4, Hearing Package at 51-52.  It is also undisputed that Petitioner has not reported to the “regular worksite for his position of record” in Washington, D.C. at least twice per biweekly pay period, as required to receive a Washington, D.C. locality rate.  Pet. PHE at 4.  The record supports these facts with an executed telework agreement with Petitioner’s Saint Augustine, Florida, address dated August 7, 2025 (Hearing Package at 32-35, 51-52, HHS Ex. 2), and two prior WFAs, dated February 1, 2023 and September 6, 2023, that note the Petitioner’s arrangement as “Remote-Outside the Local Commuting Area” and “Remote”, respectively.  HHS Ex. 2 at 7-14.  In other words, Petitioner provided notice to HHS that he would not be working in-person in Washington, D.C. making him ineligible for Washington, D.C. locality pay. 

Petitioner states he “would have followed through” with returning “back to the Washington, D.C. office,” but provided evidence that his assigned group was exempted from returning to the office by April 28, 2025.  Hearing Package at 20, 22-23.  An exemption from in-office work is separate from the determination of an ODS, and as stated above, Petitioner concedes he was performing his full-time duties from his residence in Florida.  Further, the various executed telework agreements and WFAs made 

Page 8

clear that “[f]or a long-term telework agreement, the official worksite is generally the alternative worksite to which the employee is assigned or approved to work.”  Hearing Package at 33.  As such, I find Petitioner’s official worksite for purposes of calculating locality pay was his residence in Saint Augustine, Florida, which would trigger the Rest of U.S. locality pay rate.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b)(2); see also, OPM 2025 Locality Pay Area Definitions.8

In each telework agreement, Petitioner explicitly agreed that “[a]ll pay (to include locality pay or local market supplement) is based on the employee’s official duty station as documented on a SF-50[].”  Id. at 33 (emphasis added).  Petitioner argues that the SF-50 is the controlling document for pay and “sole determinant” for an employee’s official duty station.  Pet. PHE at 3.  This is not a viable argument as it fails to allow for any errors or corrections to employment documentation and is inconsistent with the statute 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and the federal regulations regarding determination and repayment of payroll-related debts.  Further, the idea that an SF-50 is the controlling document does not allow for any responsibility to lie with the employee, which is an unreasonable presumption since employees are responsible for notifying their human resources department if they notice an error on their SF-50.9  As such, when Petitioner’s SF-50s were updated with the correct worksite location on August 20, 2025, and then updated again on October 3, 2025, made retroactive to May 4, 2025, HHS was properly exercising their ability to audit and correct errors in payment not identified by the employee.  See HHS Ex. 1 at 1-2. 

In challenging the validity of the debt, Petitioner also argues “[t]here was no official duty station, it was simply a delay in the return to the Petitioner’s ODS.”  Pet. PHE at 1.  However, this argument is unpersuasive as at least thirty SF-50 forms have been issued to Petitioner regarding his federal employment, and each SF-50 details the location of the employee’s position and the attributed locality adjustment to the basic pay rate as a result of that adjustment.  HHS Ex. 1.  Additionally, Petitioner’s biweekly Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) include the employees Pay Plan, Grade, Step, Basic Pay, Locality/Market Adjustment and Adjusted Basic Pay Figures.  Between the WFA, SF-50 and LES, the Petitioner had ample notice he was being paid at the Washington, D.C. locality pay rate while working from Florida. 

Finally, Petitioner was notified on September 24, 2025, by the Director of Division of Office Operations at ACF, that there was an active audit of employees’ duty station 

Page 9

records.  Hearing Package at 51-52.  In the correspondence between the Director and Petitioner, the Petitioner was advised that his locality pay should have been adjusted due to his remote work location and that a debt letter would be forthcoming.  As Petitioner was informed, the duty location “should reflect the locality of your home address, not Washington, D.C.”  Id. at 47. 

I recognize that there was a substantial delay in processing the change in ODS from Washington, D.C., to Florida, which caused the debt to accrue and was apparently surprising to Petitioner.  Nonetheless, the delay in processing the SF-50 does not excuse Petitioner’s obligation to refund the United States government for the overpayment of a misapplied locality rate.  Accordingly, I find the debt to be valid. 

Page 8

2. 2) The gross amount of the debt is $ $4,414.24 and the net debt owed is $1,384.27 

Based on the evidence in the record, I conclude that the total gross debt for Bill ID ZPHY100425008240 owed by Petitioner is $4,414.24, exclusive of any accrued payments, interest, or late fees and before any offsets.  This amount represents the difference between Petitioner’s pay at the Washington, D.C. locality rate minus the amount Petitioner should have been paid for a Rest of U.S. locality. 

The debt letter informed Petitioner that after offsets the net debt was $1,529.99.  However, in their Preliminary Statement, HHS argues that their calculation of Petitioner’s debt gross debt was $4,831.68 but also stated they would defer to the lower amount determined by DFAS.  HHS Br. at 9-10.  In a later filing, HHS submitted a DFAS Debt Calculation sheet that did not explain or discuss how to interpret the calculations.  HHS Ex. 6.  Because I was unable to ascertain from the filing whether the debt amount listed in the debt letter was accurate, and whether Petitioner has satisfied the debt, on December 29, 2025, I issued an order to obtain the exact amount of the debt, any offsets and remaining amounts due.  CRD Dkt. No. 19. 

On the same day, HHS filed a response to the December 29, 2025 Order, attaching Ex. 6 to show the recalculations performed.  CRD Dkt. No. 20.  HHS confirmed the gross debt amount of $4,414.24 but cited a net amount of $1,384.27 after an offset of $3,007.41 and an additional deduction of $22.56.  Id. at 26.  The $22.56 differential is noted on page 26 of Ex. 6 with unexplained codes.  While no clear explanation was provided about the increase to the offset by $22.56, HHS makes clear that the net debt is reduced to $1,384.27.  Petitioner offers no independent calculations to counter the figures assessed, therefore, I accept HHS’s revision of the offset to Petitioner’s debt and find Petitioner’s net debt to be $1,384.27 after offsets. 

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner’s non-attorney representative filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time, requesting one additional week to respond to HHS’s response to the 

Page 10

December 29, 2025 Order.  CRD Dkt. No. 21.  On January 8, 2026, the assigned Attorney Advisor sent an email to Petitioner’s non-attorney representative, copying Petitioner and HHS, to clarify whether Petitioner intended to extend the decision deadline, and flagged a need for a prompt response.  CRD Dkt. No. 22.  On January 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Revised Consent Motion for Extension of Time.  CRD Dkt. No. 23.  Petitioner’s revised motion makes a general request to extend all deadlines; however, in listing out their request, Petitioner only refers to HHS’s “Response to the December 29, 2025 Order . . .”.  Id. at 2.  As explained above, granting Petitioner’s motion would have allowed for a response after the decision deadline itself, therefore, I deny the motion. 

In lieu of Petitioner’s failure to offer a timely independent calculation to counter the figures assessed, I accept HHS’s revision of the offset to Petitioner’s debt and find Petitioner’s net debt to be $1,384.27 after offsets.  As noted, this revision by HHS was a reduction from the original debt demanded. 

3. 3) Debt Recovery 

Debts owed to the United States from a federal employee may be collected from the current pay account of the employee subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 5514.  The amount that may be deducted is limited to 15 percent of disposable pay per pay period, unless the employee consents in writing to the collection of a larger amount.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1).  Before an agency head may direct collection of indebtedness from the salary of an employee, due process must be provided.  The employee must be given written notice a minimum of 30 days prior to any attempt to collect and the notice must inform the employee of the nature and amount of the debt determined to be due; the intention of the agency to effect collection through deduction from the employee’s pay; and the notice must explain the employee’s rights under 5 U.S.C. § 5514.  The employee must be given the opportunity to inspect and copy government records related to the debt.  The employee must be offered an opportunity to enter into a written agreement agreeable to the agency head establishing a repayment schedule.  The employee must also be given the opportunity for a hearing on the determination of the agency regarding the existence or the amount of the debt and any repayment schedule not established by written agreement. 

In this case, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and the regulations at 45 C.F.R. Part 33 to effectuate the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 5514, were not followed.  As noted in the record, the debt letter stated that if Petitioner “[did] not repay the debt in full or establish a voluntary repayment schedule within 30 days, [DFAS is] required to collect the debt involuntarily from [Petitioner’s] pay, beginning on [November 29, 2025].”  Hearing Request at 5.  Notwithstanding the directives in the debt letter, Petitioner incurred deductions of $443.31 for three pay periods prior to November 29, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Nos. 7a-7c, 7f at 2.  Although HHS failed to provide Petitioner with the due process required by law, it is not an issue before me.  Additionally, Counsel for HHS states, without 

Page 11

objection, that these payroll deductions have since been refunded to Petitioner, making this a moot issue.  CRD Dkt. No. 20. 

Lastly, the debt letter informed Petitioner of his repayment options, pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 901.2.  CRD Dkt. No. 1a at 4-5.  If HHS intends to offset Petitioner’s pay to recover the debt, they must issue a notice of intent.  45 C.F.R. § 33.10.  Petitioner may propose establishing an alternative schedule for the voluntary repayment of the debt in response to a notice of intent to offset.  45 C.F.R. § 33.8(a).  I encourage the parties to reach a mutually agreed upon repayment arrangement.  In the absence of one, installment deductions from Petitioner’s pay must not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made.  45 C.F.R. § 33.10(b). 

VIII.  Waiver

HHS Form 710 instructs employees to “select only one” option between requesting a hearing to dispute the debt, a waiver of the debt, or a waiver of only administrative charges.  In this case, Petitioner requested a hearing to dispute the debt; however, Petitioner is not precluded from requesting the debt be waived, as the Office of General Counsel is authorized to review waiver requests but will not do so if a hearing request is pending.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.1(c)(3). 

IX.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the gross amount of $4,414.24, with the net debt owed of $1,384.27. 

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