Elizabeth Maples, DAB CR6874 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Elizabeth Maples, is a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA or Respondent) disputing an alleged debt owed to the United States Government.  CRD Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 1 (Hearing Request).  As discussed below, I agree with SSA that Debt ID number 52870612192, for a gross amount of $1,509.56 is valid.  However, I conclude that after subtracting recoverables and payments already collected from Petitioner, the gross amount owed is $1,355.93 and the net amount owed is $1,078.  Therefore, I AFFIRM SSA’s determination that the gross overpayment debt is valid and accurate and MODIFY the net amount owed by Petitioner. 

I. Background and Procedural History

Effective October 6, 2024, Petitioner was reassigned from a Social Insurance Administrator Assistant District Manager position to a Management and Program Analyst Staff Assistant position based in Denver, Colorado.  SSA Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 2; Hearing Request (Petitioner (P.) Ex. 4) at 40.  Under her new assignment, Petitioner’s pay was set at the General Schedule, Grade 13, Step 6 (GS-13/6) annual locality pay rate for Denver, Colorado, i.e., $134,134.  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 40.1 

Page 2

On October 20, 2024, Petitioner entered into an agreement with SSA and the Department of State called a Domestic Employees Teleworking Overseas (DETO) Agreement, which “allow[s] direct-hire employees assigned to domestic positions to accomplish duties/work from an overseas location.”  SSA Ex. 1 at 1; see also Hearing Request (P. Ex. 2) at 6-19, Hearing Request (P. Ex. 3) at 22-23.  The DETO agreement permitted Petitioner to telework from Germany at the same position and GS-13 pay grade.  SSA Ex. 1 at 2.  The agreement also states that “[t]he employee voluntarily agrees to . . . comply with all applicable Agency and Department policies and procedures . . . .”  SSA Ex. 1 at 1-2. 

In a separate document titled the DETO Personnel Policy Manual, under the section “Conditions of Employment,” there is a subsection titled “Locality Pay” that states,

• [t]he DETO locality payment is equal to the lesser of – (1) the amount of . . . locality pay the employee would have been paid if the official duty station of the employee had not been changed to an overseas location under the DETO arrangement; or (2) the amount of overseas locality pay the employee would be the paid if the employee were an eligible member of the Foreign Service . . . . 

SSA Ex. 2 at 6 (emphasis added); see also Hearing Request (P. Ex. 1) at 6.  Accordingly, Petitioner was paid at the DETO-13/6 locality rate ($126,171) because it was the lesser rate, compared to the GS-13/6 Denver-Aurora, Colorado locality pay ($134,134).  Compare 2024 OPM General Schedule Locality Pay Table for Denver-Aurora, Colorado,2 with 2024 OPM DETO Locality Pay Tables; 3 see also Hearing Request (P. Ex. 3) at 20 (Email correspondence confirming DETO salary at lesser rate); Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 42 (Petitioner’s SF-50 that was processed after her DETO was approved).  In 2025, Petitioner’s DETO rate increased to $128,788.  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 44.4 

Page 3

In March 2025, Petitioner requested and received a hardship transfer to the Dallas Region beginning in July 2025, which constituted a permissible adjustment to her DETO Agreement.  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 3) at 35-36; Domestic Employee Teleworking Overseas, 3 FAM 2371.6(c) (“An employee may also request an adjustment of the employee’s DETO Agreement by providing a written justification to their employing bureau supervisor for consideration and approval.”).  While remaining in Germany through July 2025, Petitioner agreed to reassignment at a lower grade (GS-12/10) as a Supervisory Social Insurance Specialist Operations Supervisor, with an official duty station in San Antonio, Texas.  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 3) at 29-31; Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 48-49; SSA Ex. 4 at 1.  Petitioner’s effective date in the new position was April 6, 2025, and the 2025 locality pay for the position was $116,906.  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 3) at 32; Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 48-50; see Salary Table 2025-SO For the Locality Pay Area of San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX.5 

Upon Petitioner’s hardship reassignment being approved by SSA, Petitioner should have received the GS-12/10 locality pay for the San Antonio, Texas area ($116,906), as it was the lesser compared to the DETO-12/10 locality pay ($120,685).  See id.  Instead, Petitioner continued to receive payment at the DETO-13/6 locality pay rate ($128,788) and then at the DETO-12/10 locality pay rate ($120,685) from April 6, 2026, until September 20, 2025, resulting in an overpayment of salary.6  Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 48, 50. 

On January 21, 2026, SSA issued a Debt Letter informing Petitioner of the alleged overpayment and her related due process rights.  Petitioner filed a timely Hearing Request seeking:  

• A review of [her] records to determine whether an overpayment occurred and, if so, the correct amount[;]
• Correction of my [her] pay records to reflect the appropriate GS-13 pay scale through July 31, 2025[;] and
• That any alleged overpayment be waived if found to be valid, due to the circumstances and my good faith efforts to resolve the issue.

Page 4

Hearing Request at 2.  Petitioner’s Hearing Request also included 4 attachments, consisting of her DETO Agreement, email correspondence regarding her DETO Agreement, reassignments, and correlating pay, several SF-50s, and the original January 21, 2026, Debt Letter.  Hearing Request (P. Exs. 2-5) at 3-66. 

In accordance with the deadlines established in the Acknowledgment, Prehearing Order and Notice of Oral Hearing or Paper Hearing issued on February 17, 2026, the parties both filed timely prehearing exchanges.7 See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 2.  On February 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a prehearing exchange consisting of a filing titled “Notice of Filing Exhibits,” which lists SSA’s DETO Policy as [Petitioner’s] Exhibit 1.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 8, 8a.  On March 12, 2026, SSA filed a prehearing exchange consisting of a brief and motion for judgment on the record (SSA Br.), a proposed witness list, an exhibit list, and five proposed exhibits (SSA Exhibits 1-5).  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 11, 11a-11g.  Neither party filed a responsive brief or objections to the other party’s pre-hearing exchanges. 

After reviewing the exchanges, on March 24, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing, determining that this matter would be resolved based on the written record.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12. 

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

II. Issues

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii), 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 gross total of $1,509.56, and net total of $1,231.63.

Page 5

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(e)(2)(ii), (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 the Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), Civil Remedies Division adjudicate SSA federal salary overpayment cases.  See Jan Donsbach, DAB CR1536 at 1 n.1. (2006); Portia L. Pierce, DAB CR2049 at 5 (2009). 

IV. Admission of Evidence

As noted above, Petitioner submitted SSA’s DETO Policy as the sole exhibit in her prehearing exchange, labeled as [Petitioner] Exhibit 1.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 8, 8a.  I also note that Petitioner submitted several attachments to her Hearing Request, which I mark and label as Petitioner Exhibit 2 through Petitioner Exhibit 5.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 3-66.  SSA’s complete record is comprised of a brief, five proposed exhibits, and one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 11, 11a-11g. 

Given that neither party objected to the other party’s exhibits, I admit all exhibits into the administrative record.  SSA’s exhibits are admitted as marked, SSA Exhibit 1 through SSA Exhibit 5.  Petitioner’s exhibits are admitted as follows: 

Page 6

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 $1,078.  The record supports that from April 6, 2025 (Pay Period 9), when Petitioner received a hardship reassignment to a new position at a lower GS scale (GS-12/10), through September 20, 2025 (Pay Period 20), Petitioner was erroneously paid at a higher rate.  See SSA Ex. 5. 

As Petitioner recognizes, “there was confusion regarding the appropriate pay scale” for her position in San Antonio, Texas, beginning April 6, 2025 (Pay Period 9).  Hearing Request at 2.  Indeed, Petitioner submitted eleven SF-50s that were processed by SSA Human Resources (HR) between April 6, 2025, and October 1, 2025, containing changes, corrections, and adjustments related to her hardship reassignment to San Antonio, Texas, and her DETO Agreement.  See Hearing Request (P. Ex. 4) at 43, 46-55.  Nevertheless, the facts establish that Petitioner was overpaid. 

Prior to April 6, 2025, while Petitioner was teleworking from Germany at a GS-13/6 pay rate, she was paid at the DETO rate since it was the lesser rate between the Denver-Aurora, Colorado, locality pay and the DETO Locality rate.  SSA Ex. 2 at 6.  On April 6, 2025, Petitioner’s rate should have changed to $116,906, since her new position’s GS scale (GS-12/10) paid less than the DETO-12/10 rate ($120,685).  SSA Ex. 4 at 1.  Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, she was not entitled to retain pay at the higher GS-13/6 level after she accepted a reassignment to a lower grade position in San Antonio, Texas.  See Hearing Request at 2 (stating “I should have remained at the GS-13 pay scale until my arrival in San Antonio, at which point the DETO agreement would have ended”).  Although Petitioner continued to telework in Germany under her DETO Agreement, she obtained a change in her domestic position with SSA, which should have resulted in a decrease in pay.  Instead, Petitioner received a higher rate of pay for 11 consecutive pay periods, ending on Pay Period 20.  See SSA Ex. 5 (SSA Earnings and Leave Statements showing that Petitioner was paid at annual rates of $128,788 and $120,685 instead of $116,906).  Accordingly, although Petitioner is not culpable in the accumulation of this debt, I find Petitioner’s debt is valid.  

Having determined that Petitioner’s overpayment debt is valid, I now turn to whether SSA’s calculation of the amount of the debt is correct.  Ms. Maples’ Earnings and Leave Statement for Pay Period 9 reflects that she was paid at an annual rate of $128,788, or 

Page 7

$61.71 per hour, and the remaining Earnings and Leave Statements for Pay Periods 10 through 20 shows that she was paid at an annual rate of $120,685, or $57.83 per hour.  See SSA Ex. 5.  However, Ms. Maples should have been paid at an annual rate of $116,906, or $56.02 per hour.  See https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/SO_h.pdf (last visited April 6, 2026) (Salary Table 2025-SO, showing the hourly basic and overtime rates for the Locality Pay Area of San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, Texas).  The Debt Letter includes Exhibit 6, which details the adjustments taken to correct Ms. Maples’ pay for Pay Periods 9 through 20.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 9-10.  Specifically, Exhibit 6 lists the difference in pay that Ms. Maples received for regular, overtime, and paid leave (annual, sick, family care, holiday, administrative, and credit hours used) for Pay Periods 9 through 20 to arrive at a gross overpayment of $1,509.56 and a net overpayment of $1,231.63, after deducting $277.93 in prepaid recoverables for Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance (OASDI), Retirement, and TSP.  Id.  Based on Ms. Maples’ Earnings and Leave Statements for Pay Periods 9 through 20, I find that these amounts reflect the total gross and net amounts owed, but they do not represent the current status of the debt.  See SSA Ex. 5.  Contrary to SSA’s argument “that procedural requirements were followed to initiate salary offset against Petitioner[,]” the record supports that several deductions for “Federal Debt Recovery - Voluntary” occurred prior to providing notice to Petitioner pursuant to 20 C.F.R § 422.810(f). 

The regulations require “[a]t least 30 days [notice] before the initiation of salary offset.”  20 C.F.R § 422.810(f)(1).  However, during pay period 2025-11 (for the pay period ending May 17, 2025, 250 days before providing the Debt Letter), Petitioner was deducted $106.15 from her pay for “Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary”.  SSA Ex. 5 at 5.  During pay period 2025-12, a second deduction occurred in the amount of $253.14 for “Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary,” but a “Cash Collection” was credited to Petitioner for the same amount, of $253.14, offsetting the deduction.  Id. at 7.  A third deduction for “Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary” occurred during pay period 2025-13 for $47.48.  Id. at 9.  Therefore, I find the total amount collected under “Federal Debt Recovery – Voluntary” is $407.66, from which I subtract the “Cash Collection” amount of $253.14, producing a difference of $153.63.  I find that the gross amount of $1,509.56, listed on the Debt Letter, does not factor in the $153.63 already collected from Petitioner during pay periods 2025-11, 2025-12, and 2025-13.  Compare Debt Letter at 9 with SSA Ex. 5 at 5-9.  Therefore, the current gross amount owed by Petitioner is $1,355.93.  After deducting $277.93 in recoverables, the net amount due is $1,078.  SSA should verify the accuracy of the recoverables used to arrive at the net amount owed by Petitioner after considering Petitioner’s payments during the aforementioned pay periods. 

Page 8

VI. Waiver

Petitioner’s hearing request asks that the “alleged overpayment be waived if found to be valid, due to the circumstances and [her] good faith efforts to resolve the issue.”  Hearing Request at 2.  However, I do not have authority to waive Petitioner’s debt.  Having found the debt is valid, and understanding Petitioner had little to do with HR’s delay in correcting Petitioner’s salary after changing her duty station on April 6, 2025, the waiver process is separate and independent from the instant case.  Petitioner still may 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 $1,355.93 and a net amount of $1,078.  In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(h)(4)(ii)(B), I also conclude that Petitioner’s hearing request was not baseless or resulted from an intent to delay SSA’s collection activity.  

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