Aquina F. Anderson, DAB CR6826 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Aquina F. Anderson, was hired as a Senior Refugee Program Monitor by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement, effective December 1, 2024.  At the time of hire, due to the COVID emergency, Ms. Anderson was approved to work remotely while having an official duty station (ODS) in Washington, D.C.1  When HHS began phasing employees back to the office, Petitioner was permitted to continue working remotely from an alternative duty station (ADS) in Nashville, Tennessee, where she remains to date.

On October 3, 2025, Petitioner’s personnel file was corrected to reflect Petitioner’s ODS as Nashville, Tennessee, instead of Atlanta, Georgia.  The change in ODS updated Petitioner’s locality pay adjustment rate from an Atlanta, Georgia rate to a Nashville, Tennessee 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 she was overpaid during pay periods ending March 22, 2025, through September 20, 2025, due to “Personnel Transaction, Time and Attendance and an

Page 2

overpayment record.”  The notice stated the gross debt was $4,185.91 and the net debt $2,590.35 for this period.  Petitioner timely requested a hearing to dispute the alleged debt.

In this proceeding, Petitioner challenges the existence of the assessed debt, asserting that it resulted from agency error; that HHS failed to properly establish or communicate an official duty station to base her locality pay; that HHS violated due process by prematurely initiating salary offsets; and that the agency failed to establish a valid debt.  In the alternative, Petitioner seeks waiver of the debt.  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Docket (Dkt.) Number (No.) 9b5 (Petitioner (Pet.) Prehearing Brief (PHB)) at 2-4.  HHS maintains that a change in locality pay is 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 Bill ID ZPHY100425008081 in the net amount of $2,590.35,2 related to a change in Petitioner’s ODS.  For the reasons set forth below, I hereby AFFIRM HHS’s determination.

I.      Background and Procedural History

Petitioner was hired on December 1, 2024, as a Senior Refugee Program Monitor economist with an ODS in Washington, D.C.  HHS Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 1-2; Pet. Exs. 6 at 1; 13 at 1.  On December 18, 2024, a corrected SF-50 was issued changing Petitioner’s ODS from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, Georgia.3  HHS Ex. 1 at 3.

On or about January 20, 2025, the Trump administration directed all federal employees to return to the office full time by Executive Order.

On March 17, 2025, Petitioner received an exemption to the return to office mandate in the form of an email from the Division Director, Sara Thompson, of the Division of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning at the Refugee Program Bureau.  Pet. Ex. 33 at 1, 34 at 1-2.

Page 3

On May 2, 2025, Petitioner executed an HHS Telework Agreement (Agreement) stating she would be working from her residence in Nashville, Tennessee.  HHS Ex. 2 at 1.  The Agreement only included two options: “Situational/Ad Hoc Telework” or “Long-Term Telework,” with Petitioner electing “Long-Term Telework.”  Id.  The Agreement indicated, “[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.”  Id. at 2.  The Agreement also stated 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, Notice of Personnel Action.”  Id.

On October 3, 2025, an SF-50 was processed to correct Petitioner’s location from Atlanta, Georgia to Nashville, Tennessee.  HHS Ex. 1.  The updated SF-50 changed Petitioner’s locality adjustment and adjusted her basic pay from $111,442.00 to $105,383.00, as a result of a lower locality adjustment rate for Nashville, Tennessee.  Id. The change in locality pay triggered DFAS to determine Petitioner was overpaid for fourteen pay periods, starting March 22, 2025, and ending September 20, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1a at 1 (Debt Letter). 

On October 18, 2025, DFAS issued a Debt Letter to Petitioner for an alleged gross debt of $4,185.91, and a net amount of $2,590.35 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.; DAB Dkt. No. 1. 

On December 2, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgement, Prehearing Order, and Scheduling of Conference establishing deadlines for the exchange of evidence and a hearing date for this matter.  DAB Dkt. No. 2 (Prehearing Order).  On December 3, 2025, I issued an Order granting a Motion for Extension of Time giving the parties a 60-day extension of all deadlines, including the decision due date.  DAB Dkt. No. 4. 

HHS filed a Prehearing Exchange (HHS PHE) and three exhibits (HHS Exs. 1-3).4  DAB Dk. Nos.  6a-6b, 15a. Petitioner filed a Preliminary Statement (Pet. PHE) and 49 exhibits (Pet. Exs. 1-49).  DAB Dkt. Nos. 7, 7a-7c, 8, 8a-8e, 9, 9a-9z, 9a1-9a9, 9b1-9b3.  Upon reviewing the parties’ submissions, I issued an Order on January 6, 2026, cancelling the oral hearing tentatively scheduled for December 10, 2025, in my Prehearing Order.  DAB Dkt. No. 12. 

In both Petitioner’s Hearing Request and her Prehearing Brief, she states that collection proceedings had begun prior to the Debt Letter being issued.  See DAB Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (Hearing Request); Pet. PHB at 1.  On January 7, 2026, based on Petitioner’s filings, I

Page 4

issued an Order directing HHS to clarify the amount of the alleged debt (Order Clarifying Debt).  DAB Dkt. No. 13. 

HHS filed a two-part response to the Order Clarifying Debt.  In the first filing, dated January 9, 2026, HHS stated DFAS had not responded to its request for “an accounting of the Petitioner’s debt as well as an explanation of why deductions had been made from Petitioner’s pay given the pending proceeding.”  DAB Dkt. No. 14 at 1.  The filing also included a Debt Calculation Worksheet, which HHS indicated “is attached hereto for reference but is not intended as an exhibit in this case.”  DAB Dkt. No. 14 at 2, 14a.  HHS did “accept[] that Petitioner has already had $1,595.56 deducted, and thus her net remaining debt after that payment would be $994.79.”  Id. at 3. 

On January 13, 2026, HHS filed a Supplemental Response to Order Clarifying Debt, and a spreadsheet labeled HHS Exhibit 3.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 15, 15a.  HHS’s Supplemental Response stated that DFAS provided a partial response to its request for information related to Petitioner’s debt in the form of a DFAS spreadsheet showing Petitioner’s earnings from February 9, 2025, through December 27, 2025.  Id.  HHS states the figures in the DFAS spreadsheet support “the amount set forth in the [Debt Letter] to Petitioner,” and “confirms that the [Petitioner] has already had a deduction made in partial recoupment of the debt as the Petitioner has indicated in her previous filing.”  DAB Dkt. No. 15 at 1-2. 

On January 13, 2026, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Objection to Respondent’s Evidence, objecting to HHS’s Supplemental Response to the Order Clarifying Debt and HHS Exhibit 3.  DAB Dkt. No. 16 at 1. 

Accordingly, I find the record is complete and this case 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 amount 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).

Page 5

IV.     Admission of Evidence

HHS’s complete record is comprised of three proposed exhibits.  Two exhibits were timely submitted with HHS’s Prehearing Brief, and a final proposed exhibit labeled HHS Ex. 3 was submitted after the filing deadline.  Petitioner filed a timely objection to HHS’s untimely filing.  With respect to HHS’s proposed exhibits, I find all three exhibits are relevant and material to the proceeding.  Exhibits 1 and 2 are admitted with no objection from Petitioner.  Respondent’s Exhibit 3, although untimely filed, is relevant and material to the validity and amount of the debt.  Specifically, Respondent’s Exhibit 3 is a spreadsheet from DFAS showing the payments and deductions made to the Petitioner for the period of time the debt is alleged to have accrued.  Therefore, I admit HHS Exhibits 1-3 into the administrative record over Petitioner’s objections pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Civil Remedies Division Procedures.  See DAB Dkt. No. 2b at 19 (The ALJ determines the admissibility of evidence.  The ALJ is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence) (citing J. Peaceful, L.C. d/b/a Town Market, DAB No. 2742, at 10 n.7 (2016) (“[T]he rules governing this proceeding provide that the ALJ is not bound by the [Federal Rules of Evidence].”). 

Petitioner’s complete record includes forty-nine proposed exhibits in support of her Prehearing Brief.  HHS does not object to the Petitioner’s proposed exhibits.  Accordingly, I admit Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-49 into the administrative record.  

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, 2025,5 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.  Prehearing Order at 5.

In the prehearing exchange submissions, Petitioner requested an oral hearing but did not explain why an oral hearing was necessary.  DAB Dkt. No. 9b5 at 1.  Neither Petitioner nor HHS indicated an intent to call or cross-examine a witness in this matter.  See DAB Dkt. Nos. 6 at 7; 9b5 at 1.  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 hearing on the record 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

Page 6

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 a Senior Refugee Program Monitor.  HHS Ex. 1.  When Petitioner’s employment began at ACF, she worked remotely with a Washington, D.C. locality rate, pursuant to COVID emergency protocol.  On December 18, 2024, an updated SF-50 was issued changing Petitioner’s location and duty station to Atlanta, Georgia.  HHS Ex. 2 at 3.  Petitioner remained a remote, full-time telework employee, even though on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Action “Return to In-Person Work.”6  

On March 17, 2025, Petitioner received an exemption to the return to office mandate in the form of an email from the Division Director, Sara Thompson, of the Division of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning at the Refugee Program Bureau.  Pet. Ex. 33 at 1, 34 at 1-2. 

On September 29, 2025, Élan Darlington, Director of the Division of Office Operations at ACF, emailed Petitioner about “an important matter related to the recent change in your official duty location based on your known residence of record.”  Pet. Ex. 44 at 2.  Ms. Darlington indicated that “[a]s part of a recent audit conducted by ACF on system addresses and locality pay, payroll systems have been updated to ensure accuracy and compliance . . . [and that an] adjustment may result in a debt if your prior pay included a higher locality rate than the new duty station allows.”  Id.  Ms. Darlington informed Petitioner that the “payroll system will automatically calculate the difference and initiate a collection process.”  Id.

DFAS issued a Debt Letter on October 18, 2025, informing Petitioner that she was overpaid during the pay periods ending March 22, 2025, through September 20, 2025, due to “Personnel Transaction Time and Attendance and an overpayment record.”  Debt Letter at 1.  This letter informed Petitioner she owed a gross debt amount of $4,185.91 which was reduced to a net debt amount of $2,590.35, after offsets to include any refundable portions of the taxes, benefits, and other deductions.  Id. at 4.  HHS subsequently acknowledges there was a withdrawal from Petitioner’s pay which reduced the net debt amount owed to $994.79.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 15a.

The debt letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a hearing to dispute the “validity of the debt” within 30 calendar days by filing the HHS Form 710 (Request for

Page 7

Waiver of Overpayment or Hearing) with Petitioner’s OPDIV OHR designated official.  Debt Letter at 2.

Petitioner filed a timely HHS Form 710 and a Hearing Package on October 17, 2025.  DAB Dkt. Nos. 1, 1b.  In her request, Petitioner asked to receive a copy of and inspect any records HHS has supporting the alleged debt.  Petitioner also disputed the existence of the debt and requested reimbursement for the payment deducted from her pay.  DAB Dkt. Entry No. 1.  HHS forwarded Petitioner’s hearing request to the DAB for adjudication on November 28, 2025.  DAB Dkt. No. 1f.

VII.    Analysis and Conclusions of Law

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

I find that the documentation presented by HHS from DFAS, for the pay periods ending March 22, 2025, through September 20, 2025, establishes that Petitioner was overpaid as a result of the wrong locality pay being applied to her wages.  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 raises several arguments in her Prehearing Brief to contest the debt.  First, she argues the alleged debt is invalid because it resulted from agency error.  Pet. PHB at 2-4.  Petitioner states that pursuant to,

5 U.S.C. § 5584 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 550.1104, recovery of an overpayment is improper where the employee is without fault and the overpayment resulted from administrative error.  An employee is “without fault” when they provide accurate information and reasonably rely on agency determinations.  Here, [Petitioner] fully disclosed [her] work and residence location and relied on explicit supervisory guidance regarding telework, travel, and reporting to a local ACF/HHS office.  Despite this, the agency assigned incorrect localities contrary to the facts provided.  Any overpayment therefore arose exclusively from agency error, rendering the alleged debt invalid.

Page 8

Id.  I acknowledge that Petitioner provided documentation supporting her assertion that she made numerous attempts to correct her locality from Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, to Nashville, Tennessee.  See Pet. Exs. 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 24.  However, Petitioner’s own arguments are further evidence that the time frame of overpayment and the alleged accumulated debt amount is, in fact, undisputed.  There is no dispute that from at least March 22, 2025, Petitioner resided in, and worked from Nashville, Tennessee.  HHS Ex. 2.  Specifically, Petitioner provided notice to HHS in the form of a Telework Agreement that she would be working in-person from Nashville, Tennessee, making her ineligible for locality pay from Atlanta, Georgia.  I acknowledge that failing to timely update Petitioner’s SF-50 to reflect her ODC location based on her Telework Agreement was agency error, however this error on the part of HHS does not change the fact that overpayment occurred and therefore the debt exists.

Second, Petitioner argues that HHS failed to properly establish or communicate an official duty station to determine her locality pay.  Pet. PHB at 3.  Specifically, Petitioner states, “[a]t no point was I provided with written notice that my official duty station was Washington, D.C., or Atlanta, Georgia, nor was I advised that locality pay would be determined based on a location where I did not live or regularly perform my duties.”  Id.  In Petitioner’s exhibit package, she offers her Position Description dated January 8, 2023, as evidence.  Pet. Ex. 1.  While the form states the “Duty Station” is “ACF-Nationwide,” the “Employing Office Location” is listed as “Washington, D.C.”  Id.  Similarly, Petitioner Exhibit 6 is Petitioner’s Tentative Offer Letter where it states her position is “located in Washington, [D.C.].”  Pet. Ex. 6 at 1.  Petitioner Exhibit 13 is Petitioner’s Official Offer Letter, where, again, the location is listed as “Washington, [D.C.].”  Pet. Ex. 13 at 1.

Prior to accepting her offer on September 25, 2024, Petitioner contacted Ms. Diane Baird about using an ACF office closer to her home in Nashville, Tennessee.  Pet. Ex. 9.  In an email to Ms. Baird, Petitioner correctly identified that “the salary tied to the offer that was sent yesterday would change to reflect my locality of Nashville.  I believe it is tied to D.C.,” and Ms. Baird would “check to see if . . . more info about switching the regional office assignment (DC to Atlanta/Nashville).”  Id.  After accepting the job offer, on December 18, 2024, the HHS Office of Human Resources (OHR) updated her location on her SF-50 from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, Georgia.  Pet. Ex. 48 at 4.  This change adjusted her locality rate from $29,442.00 in Washington, D.C., to $20,758.00 in Atlanta, Georgia.  Id. at 3-5.  Further, when Petitioner executed her HHS Telework Agreement on May 2, 2025, the Agreement stated, “[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.”  Id. at 2.  The Agreement also stated 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, Notice of Personnel Action.”  Id.  In sum, I find Petitioner had notice that her official duty station was initially located in Washington, D.C., and then upon her request, changed to Atlanta, Georgia.  Therefore, the locality rate applied

Page 9

during the period in question was known to Petitioner and in the subsequent Telework Agreement executed on May 2, 2025, Petitioner agreed that the applicable locality pay would be determined based on the location where Petitioner lived or regularly performed her duties.  HHS Ex. 2 at 2.  Petitioner’s own evidence does not support her assertion that she had no notice of the incorrect official duty station location or its implications for her salary amount.

Petitioner also argues, “[HHS’s] issuance of multiple SF-50s revising my official duty station during the relevant period confirms that any pay discrepancies resulted from the agency’s own inconsistent and corrective personnel actions, not from any fault or misrepresentation on my part.”  Pet. PHB at 3.  Petitioner’s argument acknowledges the error in locality pay but hinges on the debt being invalid because the error was on the part of HHS.  An agency may make corrections to errors in employment documentation and any argument against making such corrections is inconsistent with the statute 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and the federal regulations regarding determination and repayment of payroll-related debts.  As such, HHS properly exercised its ability to audit and correct errors in payment when they updated Petitioner’s SF-50 on October 3, 2025.  See HHS Ex. 1 at 4.

I recognize that there was a substantial delay in processing the change in ODS from Atlanta, Georgia to Nashville, Tennessee, which caused the debt to accrue.  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.

2)    The gross amount of the debt is $ 4,185.91 and the net debt owed is $994.79.

Based on the evidence in the record, I conclude that the total gross debt for Bill ID ZPHY100425008081 owed by Petitioner is $4,185.91, exclusive of any accrued payments, interest, or late fees and before any offsets.  HHS Ex. 3.  This amount represents the difference between Petitioner’s pay at the Atlanta, Georgia locality rate minus the amount Petitioner should have been paid for at a Nashville, Tennessee locality during the fourteen pay periods in question.  Id.

The Debt Letter informed Petitioner that after offsets the net debt was $2,590.35.  However, in response to an Order Clarifying Debt issued on January 7, 2026, HHS “accept[ed] that Petitioner has already had $1,595.56 deducted, and thus her net remaining debt after that payment would be $994.79.”  DAB Dkt. No. 14. at 3.

Petitioner objects to HHS’s Supplemental Response to the Order Clarifying Debt, and HHS Exhibit 3, but offers no independent calculation.  DAB Dkt. No. 16 at 1.

Page 10

In lieu of Petitioner’s failure to offer an 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 $994.79 after offsets.

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 a debt.  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.

Petitioner argues that in this case, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and 5 U.S.C. § 550.1104, were not followed as the Debt Letter stated that deductions would begin on November 29, 2025, but instead occurred on October 10, 2025.  Pet. PHB. at 3; Debt Letter at 4; Pet. Ex. 47.  I agree.  Although HHS failed to provide Petitioner with the due process required by law, it is not the issue before me.  The controlling regulation only allow me to consider the very narrow issues related to the determination of HHS concerning the existence or amount of the debt, and the repayment schedule.  45 C.F.R. § 33.3(c)(2)(i)-(ii).

However, since HHS previously commenced collection action from Petitioner, if HHS intends to further offset Petitioner’s pay to recover the remaining 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).

Page 11

VIII.    Waiver

HHS Form 710 instructs employees to “select only one” option when electing to request either a hearing to dispute the debt, a waiver of the debt, or a waiver of only administrative charges.  Here, Petitioner requested a hearing to dispute the debt while also presenting an alternative argument in support of waiver.  Pet. PHB at 4.  Petitioner is not precluded from seeking waiver of the debt, 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).  I urge HHS to exercise its discretion to waive the debt considering Petitioner’s earnest and repeated attempts to correct her locality.

IX.      Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the gross amount of $4,185.91, that $1,595.56 has already been deducted from Petitioner’s pay, and that the remaining net debt owed is $994.79.

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