Rachel E. Factor, DAB CR6817 (2026)

DECISION

Rachel E. Factor, an employee of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), timely appealed HHS’ determination that she owes a gross debt of $6,325.60 due to salary overpayment during the pay periods ending January 25, 2025 through September 20, 2025.  I find that Petitioner was overpaid by $6,325.60 (net amount of $3,849.95) and affirm HHS’ determination. 

I.  Background

On September 26, 2024, HHS offered Petitioner a position as a Senior Refugee Program Manager with the Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF) located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with an effective date of October 6, 2024.  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Docket (Dkt.) Entry No. 11.  Petitioner accepted the position but did not work from a duty station in Philadelphia and instead worked remotely from her home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  See DAB Dkt. Entry No. 7 at 1.  HHS subsequently conducted an internal audit and on October 3, 2025, changed Petitioner’s official duty station to Lancaster, Pennsylvania with an effective date of January 12, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 13. 

In a letter dated October 18, 2025, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), which handles payroll for HHS, advised Petitioner that she owed a net debt of $3,849.95. 

Page 2

DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1.  Petitioner disputed this overpayment amount and requested a hearing.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1.  CRD received Petitioner’s hearing request on November 17, 2025, and assigned it to me to adjudicate on November 18, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1b. 

HHS now moves for summary judgment.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 14.  In addition to HHS’ Pre-hearing Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment, HHS submitted a Written Statement of Facts and four exhibits (HHS Exs. 1-4).  DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 9-14.  In support of her hearing request, on November 24, 2025, Petitioner submitted a brief statement indicating that she disputes “the timeline of the debt” and “[a]ll documentation . . . shows I was not officially remote until March 2025.”  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 4.  Petitioner included “supporting documentation for all remote work updates” in the form of several emails.  Id.  In the absence of any objections, I admit HHS Exs. 1-4 and the supporting documentation Petitioner submitted on November 24, 2025 (DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 5-7) into the written record. 

The regulations that govern these proceedings instruct me to provide an oral hearing if I determine “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).  In my prehearing order, I advised the parties to indicate in their prehearing exchange if they wanted a witness to testify or to make an oral presentation and why such a hearing is necessary.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 3 at 6. 

Neither party stated why an oral hearing is necessary in this case, nor explained why this matter cannot be resolved by a review of the documentary evidence alone.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(a)(2)(iii).  Thus, on December 12, 2025, I determined that an oral hearing was unnecessary to resolve this case and informed the parties that I would make a determination based upon a review of the available written record.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 15 at 1; see 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(3).  I also noted that HHS filed a prehearing brief and motion for summary judgment, however, Petitioner did not respond to HHS’ motion for summary judgement.  As Petitioner is pro se in this matter, I extended Petitioner’s response deadline until December 22, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 15 at 2.  As of this date, Petitioner has not submitted any response. 

The record is now complete and ready for a decision.  If I determine a hearing is not necessary, then I may adjudicate the case as a “[p]aper hearing”.  See 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(c)(3).  I therefore decide this case based on the available written record, without considering whether the standards for summary judgment are satisfied. 

II.  Issues

I may only decide the following issues in this case: 

Page 3

1) Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States Government (i.e., whether the debt exists);

2) If so, whether $6,325.60 (net amount of $3,849.95) is the correct amount of the debt owed; and

3) If there is a repayment schedule that is established other than by written agreement (i.e., HHS imposed a repayment schedule), whether the terms of the repayment schedule are appropriate. 

III.  Discussion

Petitioner owes HHS a debt in the net amount of $3,849.95 due to salary overpayment.1 

The three issues identified above are the only appealable issues in a salary overpayment matter.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  The facts relating to the issues here are straightforward. 

On May 31, 2023, while employed by HHS, Petitioner signed a Workplace Flexibilities Agreement and received approval to work remotely from her home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in accordance with HHS policies in effect at the time.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 10.  On September 26, 2024, HHS offered Petitioner a position as a Senior Refugee Program Monitor with HHS/ACF located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 11.  Her appointment was effective October 6, 2024.  Id.  Petitioner received a Notification of Personnel Action Standard Form 50 (SF-50) dated October 16, 2024, reflecting her position change and a new official duty station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 12.  However, the record does not reflect that Petitioner ever worked at her new official duty station in Philadelphia and Petitioner does not dispute that she continued to work remotely from her home in Lancaster.  HHS subsequently conducted an internal audit and on October 3, 2025, issued Petitioner a new SF-50 reflecting that Petitioner’s duty station was her remote location at her home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and adjusting Petitioner’s locality pay.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 13.  This SF-50 notified Petitioner of the personnel action changing Petitioner’s official duty station and her locality pay and listed an effective date of January 12, 2025.2  Id. 

Page 4

As documented in the October 3, 2025 SF-50, Petitioner’s starting annual salary was set at $111,101, which included a basic pay rate of $93,026 plus a locality adjustment of $18,075 for the locality pay area including Lancaster.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 13.  At the Philadelphia locality rate in 2025, as a GS-13, step 2 Senior Refugee Program Monitor, Petitioner received an annual salary of $119,994, which included a basic pay rate of $93,026 plus a locality adjustment of $26,968.  Id.  With the lower locality rate applied, Petitioner’s 2025 salary was reduced from $119,994 to $111,101.  Id. 

In total, HHS determined the retroactive correction of Petitioner’s duty station and locality pay resulted in an overpayment to Petitioner in the amount of $6,325.60 for the pay periods ending January 25, 2025 through September 20, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1a.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net salary overpayments received by Petitioner totaled $3,849.95.  Id. 

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). 

Here, the parties do not dispute that since at least January 12, 2025, Petitioner regularly performed her work duties in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  After reviewing the written record in this matter, I determine that during the relevant timeframe Petitioner did not report to her official duty station in Philadelphia at least twice per biweekly pay period.  Accordingly, I find Petitioner’s official worksite for purposes of calculating locality pay was her remote worksite in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

Based on my finding that Petitioner’s official worksite was in Lancaster, I also find that Petitioner’s salary during the pay periods in question should have been calculated based on the Harrisburg-Lebanon Pennsylvania locality area rate.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b)(2);  see also OPM 2025 Locality Pay Area Definitions, available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2025… (last visited Jan.7, 2025).  Therefore, I conclude Petitioner received

Page 5

salary overpayments for the pay periods ending January 25, 2025 through September 20, 2025, in which she was incorrectly paid at the Philadelphia locality area pay rate. 

In challenging the debts, Petitioner disputes the “timeline of the debt” and states that she “was not officially remote until March 2025.”  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 4.  Petitioner appears to argue that her change in duty station should be effective only as of March 2025, when it appears that HHS/ACF leadership approved a remote waiver and Petitioner believes her status as a remote worker became official.  See DAB Dkt. Entry Nos. 4-7.  However, upon review of the record, there does not appear to be any dispute that Petitioner has worked remotely at her home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania since she accepted the position of Senior Refugee Program Monitor with HHS/ACF in the fall of 2024.  Petitioner also does not dispute that she received pay for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania locality from the date she began working as a Senior Refugee Program Manager (October 6, 2024), until she was notified of the change in her duty station on October 3, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 13. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments regarding the “timeline of the debt” are unpersuasive.  The regulations clearly state that if an employee is not scheduled to report to their regular worksite at least once a week on a regular and recurring basis, then their telework site becomes their official worksite and duty station.  5 C.F.R. § 531.605(d)(3).  The operative factor in determining locality pay is the location of Petitioner’s official worksite—not whether the worksite location was authorized by the agency.  See 5 C.F.R. § 531.604(b).  As explained above, Petitioner’s official worksite, whether officially authorized and designated as remote or not, was in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  Thus, under the applicable regulations and locality pay area definitions, she should have been paid based on the Harrisburg-Lebanon, Pennsylvania locality rate during the relevant pay periods.  See 5 C.F.R. §§ 531.604(b), 531.605(a)(1), (d)(1).  Further, for purposes of determining when Petitioner’s debt started to accrue, HHS determined that the effective date was January 12, 2025, instead of her start date on October 6, 2024.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 2, n.1.  In making this determination, HHS relied on 5 C.F.R. § 330.502(a), which states that “[a]n agency must wait at least 90 days after an employee's latest nontemporary competitive appointment before the agency may . . . .Transfer, reinstate, reassign, or detail an employee to a different geographical area.”  Id.  Thus, HHS determined that the overpayment “only started to accrue on the date of the first pay period following the expiration of 90 days following her new appointment.”  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 14 at 5-6. 

Petitioner does not dispute that the overpayment was correctly calculated or otherwise raise any arguments concerning the amount of the debt.  See DAB Dkt. Entry No. 4.  Further, HHS has shown that it correctly calculated the amount of Petitioner’s debt based on the difference between the salary Petitioner received at the Philadelphia locality pay rate and the salary Petitioner should have received at the Harrisburg-Lebanon, Pennsylvania locality pay rate during the relevant pay periods.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1a.

Page 6

Specifically, HHS correctly determined that the overpayment made to Petitioner totaled $6,325.60 for the pay periods ending January 25, 2025 through September 20, 2025.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net total owed by Petitioner is $3,849.95. 

Additionally, a federal employee has the right to dispute the “terms of the repayment schedule” of a debt when an agency imposes a repayment schedule other than by a written agreement between the employee and the agency.  5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(D).  However, it does not appear that HHS has imposed a repayment schedule in this case and Petitioner has not raised any arguments concerning a repayment schedule.  I urge HHS to try to reach an agreement with Petitioner regarding repayment of the debt rather than impose a repayment schedule.  See 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2)(C).  The amount of debt in this case is significant and Petitioner remains an employee of the agency.  I also note that if HHS ultimately imposes a repayment schedule on Petitioner, Petitioner may request a hearing seeking review of the terms by an administrative law judge.  Also, 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.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1.  However, Petitioner is not precluded from requesting the debt be waived, as HHS 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). 

Finally, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 33.6(d)(2)(ii), I find that Petitioner’s request for this review was not baseless, and she did not file it intending to delay collections activity. 

IV.  Conclusion

I sustain HHS’s determination.  Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government in the gross amount of $6,325.60.  Less applicable recoverables, including tax and payroll withholdings, the net total Petitioner owes HHS is $3,849.95. 

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