Taisha Henderson, DAB CR6869 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Taisha Henderson, 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 Debt ID number 53571928500 for a gross amount of $5,416.00 and a net amount of $3,964.94, related to a timekeeping correction, is valid and I, therefore, AFFIRM SSA’s determination.

I.   Background and Procedural History

On May 1, 2025, Petitioner suffered a traumatic injury while on the job.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request) at 25-26.  The following day, Petitioner began receiving Continuation of Pay (COP) benefits under the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) for any working hours she missed due to her injury.  20 C.F.R. § 10.200; SSA Exhibits (Exs.) 1 at 2; 2.

Under FECA, “[f]or most employees who sustain a traumatic injury . . . the employer must continue the employee’s regular pay during any periods of resulting disability, up to a maximum of 45 calendar days.”  20 C.F.R., § 10.200(a).  Moreover, “[r]egular days off are included if COP has been used on the regular work days immediately preceding or

Page 2

following the regular day(s) off, and medical evidence supports disability.”  20 C.F.R. § 10.215(d).1

According to FECA, Petitioner’s 45-calendar days of COP status should have ended on June 14, 2025.  However, due to an error in processing Petitioner’s timesheets, Petitioner’s days off were not originally coded with the appropriate COP status.  As a result, Petitioner received COP status through July 10, 2025.  SSA Exs. 1 at 2; 2.

Once the error was discovered, Petitioner’s timesheets for pay periods 2025-14 and 2025-15 were corrected from pay code COP to Leave Without Pay (LWOP).  SSA Exs. 1 at 2; 2 at 9-12.  Petitioner’s timesheets for pay periods 2025-11, 2025-12, 2025-13, were also corrected to include COP status during the applicable weekends.2

Petitioner was informed on November 20, 2025, of the corrections to her timesheets and she asked to have leave applied towards the unpaid days.  SSA Ex. 1 at 2.

On December 2, 2025, Petitioner was informed that “her leave balance would not cover the entire debt.”  Id.  At that time, Petitioner declined to use her leave to cover the unpaid workdays.  Id.  

On January 21, 2026, SSA notified Petitioner that she owed a gross amount of $5,416.00 related to the aforementioned adjustments, which after applicable recoverables result in a net debt of $3,964.94.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a (Debt Letter) at 1, 9.

On February 13, 2026, an SSA employee filed Petitioner’s timely filed hearing request3 and a copy of the Debt Letter onto the Departmental Appeals Board’s electronic filing system.  See Hearing Request; Debt Letter.  The case was docketed and assigned to me for adjudication.

On February 20, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Informal Conference of Meeting which established, among other deadlines, a deadline for the parties pre-hearing exchanges.

On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed her Notice of Appearance and Request for Documents.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4-5.

On February 24, 2025, SSA filed a Response to Order and Motion to Dismiss arguing that Petitioner’s Hearing Request was not timely filed.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10.

Page 3

On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,” along with several proposed exhibits and an exhibit list.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 11- 15.  One of Petitioners supporting documents, labeled Exhibit P-1 is titled “Petitioner’s Witness Statement,” where she raised issue with the SSA’s debt allegation.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.  Despite the caption, I construe the filing titled “Petitioner’s Witness Statement” as Petitioner’s timely filed prehearing brief (P. Br.).  Petitioner also filed “Petitioner’s Exhibit List Docket C-26-329,” which lists 8 proposed exhibits (P. Exs. 1-8).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15.  4The remaining exhibits (P. Exs. 3-8), are located in different parts of the record.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 25; 26; 27; 28 (P. Exs. 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively); 12; 13 (P. Exs. 7, and 8, respectively).

On February 25, 2026, SSA filed its timely prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for summary judgment (SSA Br.), an exhibit list, two proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-2), and a proposed witness list.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 16; 16a-16d.

On that same day, Petitioner filed a Notice of Factual Error in Respondent’s Filing, and a Motion to Compel Production of System Audit Trail.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 17 and 18.  SSA then filed a Corrected SSA Ex. 1 Declaration that same day.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 19.

On February 26, 2026, Petitioner filed her Reply to Respondent’s Corrected Declaration.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 21.  In her reply, Petitioner argued that in Respondent’s corrected filing there is an incorrect case number and that the repeated errors made, including SSA’s admission of the time keeping errors, could mean the “alleged overpayment was the result of administrative error”.  See Id. at 2.

On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Sanctions and Request for Adverse Inference.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 24.  On March 3, 2026, Petitioner filed supporting exhibits labeled P-3 through P-6.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 25-28.

On March 6, 2026, SSA filed an objection to Petitioner’s proposed exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, arguing the proposed exhibits should be excluded from the record due to relevance, and arguing Petitioner has not submitted a prehearing exchange.5  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 29.  Petitioner, in response filed Petitioners Response to Agency Objection to Evidence.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 30.

Page 4

On March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a Notice of Factual Discrepancies and Evidence of Payroll System Override along with documents labeled Exhibits 1 and 2.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 31a-31b.

On March 16, 2026, I issued an Order Denying SSA’s Motion to Dismiss,6 Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions,7 and Cancelling of Oral Hearing.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 32.

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 net total of $3,964.94.

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).

IV.  Admission of Evidence

SSA’s complete record is comprised of a brief, two proposed exhibits, and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 16; 16a-16d.  As noted earlier, Petitioner did object to SSA’s original proposed witness declaration and SSA has since amended the declaration.

SSA filed an objection to Petitioner’s proposed exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, arguing the proposed exhibits should be excluded from the record due to relevance.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 29.

Page 5

I determine the admissibility of evidence and am not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence.  CRDP ¶ 20.  Petitioner’s proposed Exhibit 3 is proof of her traumatic injury sustained on May 1, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry no. 15.  Exhibit 4 is evidence of initial errors made by SSA in their initial filings.  Id.  Exhibit 5 is a summary of her medical status and impact on her ability to manage payroll disputes.  Id.  Exhibit 6 is a letter containing Petitioner’s case but with a different employee’s name.  Id.  I find these exhibits are relevant to the case.  Therefore, I admit SSA Exhibits 1-2, without objection; and overrule SSA’s objection and admit Petitioner’s exhibits 1-8 into the administrative record.

V.  Analysis and Conclusions of Law

I find that Petitioner is indebted to the United States Government due to a salary overpayment for the net amount of $3,964.94.  The record supports that during the relevant pay periods, someone other than Petitioner submitted and approved Petitioner’s timesheets which incorrectly applied COP status.  SSA Br. at 3; 20 C.F.R. § 10.200.  Per FECA law, Petitioner’s timesheets should have included COP status on Petitioner’s days off, ending COP status on June 14, 2025.  Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 10.215(d).  Instead, COP status was incorrectly applied through July 10, 2025, causing the overpayment.  Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 10.200.  Upon discovering the error, any days that applied COP status beyond the 45-calendar days were recoded as LWOP.  SSA Br. at 3.  Petitioner was given the option to apply leave to offset the amount owed but declined to do so as she did not have enough leave to offset the entire debt.  SSA Ex. 1 at 2.  As a result, payment was issued for work days now coded as Leave Without Pay.

In her Prehearing Brief, Petitioner admits that “under federal law, I was entitled to 45 days of COP.  During this period, I was incapacitated and unable to access my workplace, my government laptop, or the Agency’s timekeeping systems.”  P. Br. at 1.  This argument, while compelling, does not consider that her days off also count towards the 45-calendar days permitted under FECA.  Accordingly, although Petitioner is not culpable in the accumulation of this debt, I find Petitioner’s debt is valid.

VI.  Waiver

Petitioner’s hearing request asks for “a total waiver of the alleged debt.”  Hearing Request at 1.  Petitioner argues that waiver is appropriate due to,

No fault of employee: the alleged overpayment resulted solely from administrative actions taken by management during [Petitioner’s] leave.  There was no fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of good faith on [Petitioner’s] part.

Financial Hardship: Recovery of this debt would be against equity and good conscience while [Petitioner’s is] managing a

Page 6

work-related injury and the financial transitions associated with Workers’ Compensation.

Reliance on Agency Action: [Petitioner] relied on the Agency’s expertise to process [her] pay accurately.  [Petitioner] had no reason to believe [her] pay was incorrect, as management held sole responsibility for [her] timecard attestation.

Hearing Request at 2.  While I understand Petitioner’s arguments may be true, the waiver process is separate and independent from the instant case.  Petitioner may still pursue waiver as an alternative to the outcome of this case by following the instructions in the Debt Letter.  See Debt Letter at 7.

For reference, the Debt Letter states that “if [Petitioner] . . . believe[s] that collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience or not in the best interest of the United States, [she] may request a waiver within 3 years from the date of th[e] letter.”  Debt Letter at 7.  The letter advises that “[o]verpayments eligible for waiver are those resulting from an erroneous payment through administrative error when there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the employee.”  Id.

VII.  Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Petitioner owes a debt to the government in the gross amount of $5,416.00 and a net amount of $3.964.94.

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