Benjamin Jones III, DAB CR6868 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Benjamin Jones III, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (Respondent or SSA) disputing an alleged debt owed to the United States Government.  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that the debt related to Debt ID number 53141973143 in the amount of $123.85, related to unpaid federal employee health benefits (FEHB), is valid and AFFIRM SSA’s determination. 

I. Background and Procedural History

Petitioner is a current SSA employee that did not receive any salary payments from October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025, due to a lapse in appropriations.  SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 1.  During this furlough period,1 as Petitioner’s coverage continued, Petitioner’s FEHB premiums of $123.85 per pay-period accumulated.  SSA Ex. 2.  During pay period 2025-24, Petitioner paid $247.70 paid in FEHB premiums but still owed $123.85 for pay period 2025-22.  Compare SSA Ex. 5 and 6, with SSA Ex. 7.  Petitioner resumed paying his regular FEHB premiums amount of $123.85 for pay period 2025-25.  SSA Ex. 8. 

Page 2

On January 21, 2026, SSA notified Petitioner that he owed $123.85 for Health Benefits related to “effective pay period 202522”.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1a (Debt Letter) at 1, 9. 

On January 28, 2026, Petitioner sent an email to the address listed on the Debt Letter “requesting a hearing for overpayment in reference to health benefits for amount [$]123.85.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 (Hearing Request). 

On February 5, 2026, an SSA employee electronically filed Petitioner’s hearing request and debt letter onto the Departmental Appeals Board’s electronic filing system (DAB E-File).  The case was docketed and assigned to me for adjudication. 

On February 11, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order, and Notice of Informal Conference of Meeting outlining the procedures, requirements, and deadlines in this case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2 (Prehearing Order).  The Prehearing Order also set an informal conference or meeting for March 10, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, “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.”  See 20 C.F.R. § 422.810; Id. at 4.  The Prehearing Order also informed that “[i]f a party wants witnesses to testify at an informal conference, wants an informal meeting, or wants to make an oral presentation, then that party must indicate that in the prehearing exchange and state why an oral hearing or meeting is necessary.”  Prehearing Order at 4-5.  The Prehearing Order directed the parties to register for DAB E-File, and to simultaneously submit their prehearing exchange no later than March 2, 2026.  Id. at 3.  The Prehearing Order also informed the parties that “this case is governed by procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h).”  Id. at 2. 

On March 2, 2026, SSA submitted a timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for summary judgment (SSA Br.), an exhibit list, eight proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-8), and a proposed witness list.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 4; 5; 5a-5h; 6. 

On March 4, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing stating I did not find issues of credibility or veracity that required an oral hearing to resolve the case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8.  The Order also noted that since Petitioner had not registered for DAB E-File or submitted a prehearing exchange as directed by the Prehearing Order, it appeared Petitioner was abandoning their hearing request.2 Id. at 2. 

Page 3

On March 12, 2026, I issued an Order to Show Cause that directed Petitioner to indicate whether he was abandoning his request.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12.  Petitioner responded to the courtesy email that same day stating,

• I’m simply saying I have a hard enough responsibility to keep in mind keeping up with my job I shouldn’t have to keep up with payroll which is payroll or [sic] responsibility that is their responsibility they keep track with the amount of deduction supposed to be coming out as far as my benefits not me this should be waived and taking a full responsibility by the organization not me but if I have to accept I’ll accept the payment arrangement of the $25 per pay. 

CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11.  I construe this email from Petitioner as his prehearing exchange even though it was received after the March 2, 2026 due date. 

Accordingly, I find the record is complete and this case is ripe for a decision on the written record. 

II. Issues

The issues to be decided in this case are: 

1. Whether Petitioner owes a debt to the United States government; and
2. If so, whether Petitioner owes a total of $123.85.

III. Jurisdiction

The issues identified above are the only appealable issues regarding a salary overpayment matter.  5 U.S.C § 5514(a)(2)(D); 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(f)(1)(vii), (h)(4)(ii). 

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 an alleged debt.  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 under which administrative law judges with CRD adjudicate SSA federal salary overpayment cases.  See Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009); Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 (2006). 

Page 4

IV. Admission of Evidence

SSA’s complete record is comprised of eight proposed exhibits and one proposed witness.  As noted earlier, Petitioner did not file a timely prehearing exchange, nor did Petitioner object to SSA’s proposed exhibits or witness.  Therefore, I admit SSA Exhibits 1-8 into the administrative record without objection.  

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment for $123.85. 

Throughout the period where Petitioner was furloughed, Petitioner’s FEHB coverage continued, even though Petitioner was in a non-pay status.  As a result, no FEHB premiums were collected from Petitioner for pay periods 2025-22, 2025-23.  SSA Exs. 5; 6.  During pay period 2025-24, $247.70 was deducted from Petitioner’s wages; this amount is the equivalent of two FEHB premiums, that were applied to the outstanding FEHB premiums for pay periods 2025-23 and 2025-24.  SSA Ex. 7.  The FEHB premium for 2025-22 remained outstanding, generating the “health benefit” debt for $123.85 described in the Debt Letter. 

Petitioner does not raise any arguments in his Prehearing Brief to contest the debt.  Therefore, I find that the documentation presented by SSA, for the pay periods 2025-22, 2025-23, 2025-24, establishes that the amount owed for Debt ID number 53141973143 is $123.85.  SSA Exs. 5; 6; 7; Debt Letter at 9. 

As indicated in the Debt Letter, Petitioner may enter a payment agreement to satisfy the debt.  Debt Letter at 4.  Petitioner may elect to pay the full amount or enter minimum bi-weekly payroll deductions.  Id.  Petitioner is cautioned that “administrative review of a debt will not suspend the assessment of interest, penalties, and administrative costs.”  20 C.F.R § 422.807(h)(1). 

VI. Petitioner’s dispute of the debt was not baseless, and Petitioner did not dispute the debt with the intent to delay SSA’s collection activity.

The applicable regulations state that my decision must “includ[e] a determination whether the employee’s petition for hearing was baseless and resulted from an intent to delay the creditor agency’s collection activity.”  20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B).  I find that Petitioner’s hearing request was not baseless, nor did Petitioner dispute the debt with intent to delay SSA’s collection activities.  Based on the record, it is clear Petitioner is frustrated and surprised by SSA’s overpayment determination and genuinely believes the decision was unwarranted.  Thus, while I do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, I do find that he challenged the debt in good faith and there is no indication Petitioner 

Page 5

sought to delay payment of the debt.  It is also worth mentioning that Petitioner did not request any delay in this case despite having the opportunity and right to do so. 

VII. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the gross amount of $123.85.  

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