Cheryl Chicora, DAB CR6878 (2026)

DECISION

Petitioner, Cheryl Chicora, a current employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA) disputes the existence of an alleged debt owed to the United States Government.  As discussed below, I find that SSA has not proven that a debt exists in the amount of $303.61. 

I. Background and Procedural History

From October 1, 2025, through November 12, 2025, SSA furloughed Petitioner from her position with SSA and she did not receive her regular biweekly pay due to a lapse in federal appropriations.1  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Number (No.) 12 at 2; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13a.  However, pursuant to law and agency guidance, Petitioner’s federal employee health benefits (FEHB) coverage continued during the furlough period.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12 at 2; see CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13b.  Petitioner’s FEHB premium deduction for each biweekly pay period was $303.61.  CRD Dkt. Entries 1b and 13d.  The lapse in federal appropriations ended on November 12, 

Page 2

2025, and Petitioner subsequently returned to duty status with SSA and received retroactive pay.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 4.

Following her return to duty, on January 20, 2026, SSA issued a letter to Petitioner notifying her that “[o]ur records show that you have an overpayment of pay.  This debt is the result of you owing certain deduction(s) retroactively.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1. The letter further stated that Petitioner owed a debt of $303.61 related to a “Health Benefit” for the “Effective Pay Period 202522”.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1a at 1, 9.  

By letter dated February 9, 2026, Petitioner requested “a hearing based on notice dated 1/20/2026.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1.  Petitioner’s letter stated she “did not receive this notice timely in the mail, otherwise, this hearing request would have been submitted within 15 days . . . .”  Id.  Petitioner stated that she did “not agree with the administrative determination that [she] was overpaid” and requested “a breakdown of what was paid to [her] and where this overpayment occurred.”  Id.  In the alternative, Petitioner “asks this decision to be overturned as it was not [her] fault and do[es] not agree with this determination.”  Id.  

On February 19, 2026, an SSA employee filed2 Petitioner’s hearing request, the SSA letter notifying Petitioner of the debt, and Petitioner’s Earnings and Leave Statements for pay periods 21 through 24.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 1; 1a; 1b.  The case was subsequently  docketed and assigned to me for adjudication. 

On February 20, 2026, I issued an Acknowledgment and Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to respond to: (1) whether Petitioner’s hearing request was timely submitted; (2) if not, whether SSA excuses the untimely hearing request; (3) whether delay was the result of circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control or because Petitioner did not receive actual notice of the filing deadline; and (4) whether the parties object to the proposed date of April 20, 2026, by which I must to resolve this case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3. 

In response to my Order to Show Cause, SSA responded stating that SSA “acknowledges that mail service may have been interrupted due to a major snow event in the Northeastern United States.  Accordingly, although Petitioner’s hearing request is untimely, [SSA] excuses the untimely filing due to circumstances beyond Petitioner’s control.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6 at 2.  Petitioner also timely responded to my Order to Show Cause.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8.  

On March 3, 2026, I issued a Prehearing Order and Scheduling of Informal Conference of Meeting (Prehearing Order).  In my Prehearing Order, I accepted Petitioner’s hearing request as timely and set an informal conference or meeting for April 9, 2026.  CRD Dkt. 

Page 3

Entry No. 9.  In my Prehearing Order, I noted that any oral hearing, including an informal conference or meeting, would be necessary only “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(h)(3)(ii); CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 3.  My Prehearing Order directed SSA to submit its prehearing exchange by March 18, 2026, and Petitioner to submit her prehearing exchange by March 30, 2026.  Id. at 2.  The Prehearing Order also stated 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.”  Id. at 3. 

On March 18, 2026, SSA submitted its prehearing exchange consisting of a prehearing brief and motion for summary judgment, an exhibit list, four proposed exhibits (SSA Exs. 1-4), and a proposed witness list with one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 12; 13; 13a-13d; 14.  On March 19, 2026, Petitioner submitted her prehearing exchange, consisting of a prehearing brief and proposed witness list with one proposed witness.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 15; 16. 

I reviewed both parties’ prehearing exchanges and, on April 1, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing after concluding that an oral hearing was unnecessary to resolve this case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 17.  Subsequently, on April 2, 2026, SSA filed an objection to Petitioner’s brief and Petitioner filed a response to SSA’s objection on April 14, 2026. CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 18; 20-21. 

This matter is now ripe for a decision based on my review of the documentary evidence the parties have provided. 

II. Issues

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 422.810(e)(2)(ii), I may decide the following issues: 

1. Whether a debt exists and the amount of the debt; and
2. The repayment schedule, unless it is established by written agreement.

III. Jurisdiction

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).  SSA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) maintain an interagency agreement under which administrative law judges at the HHS Departmental 

Page 4

Appeals Board’s Civil Remedies Division adjudicate federal salary overpayment cases involving SSA employees. 

IV. Analysis

SSA contends that Petitioner owes a debt due to a salary overpayment because “[d]uring the furlough, Petitioner owed, but did not pay, $303.61 for FEHB premiums during both pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12 at 2.  SSA claims “[d]uring pay period 2025-24, Petitioner owed an additional $303.61 in FEHB premiums but paid only $607.22 in FEHB premiums.”  Id.  However, based on my review of the documentary evidence, specifically SSA Earning and Leave Statements for pay periods 2025-21, 2025-22, 2025-23, 2025-243, and 2025-25, I disagree with SSA’s position and recitation of facts.  

According to the Earning and Leave Statement (ELS) for pay period 2025-21, Petitioner’s salary was deducted in the amount of $303.61 for “Health Benefits” and the ELS shows a Year-to-Date (YTD) deduction amount of $6,293.79.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 1.  During pay period 2025-22, it appears Petitioner’s salary was not deducted for “Health Benefits” as the ELS statement shows a deduction amount of $0.004 and a YTD deduction amount of $6,293.79 (the same YTD amount as prior pay period 2025-21).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 2. This is not disputed by the parties.  

However, SSA contends in its prehearing brief and its objection to Petitioner’s prehearing brief that SSA did not deduct any amount for Petitioner’s health benefits during pay period 2025-23.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12 at 4-5; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 2-3.  Yet Petitioner’s ELS for pay period 2025-23 indicates that a “Current” amount of $303.61 and an “Adjusted” amount of $303.61 were deducted for “Health Benefits”.   CRD Dkt. 

Page 5

Entry No. 1b at 3.  The pay period 2025-23 ELS also indicates an YTD deduction amount of $6,901.01 for “Health Benefits”.5 Id. 

SSA then contends that in pay period 2025-24, SSA deducted $607.22 for Petitioner’s health benefits. CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12 at 2, 5; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 3.  Petitioner’s  ELS for pay period 2025-24 indicates that Petitioner’s salary was deducted in the amount of $303.61 for “Health Benefits” and shows a YTD deduction amount of $7,204.62.6  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 4.  Petitioner’s ELS for pay period 2025-24 also indicates that Petitioner’s salary was deducted in the amount of $303.61 for “Health Benefits Pre-Tax/Post-Tax Debt” and shows a YTD deduction amount of $303.61.  Id.  

SSA argues that “the FEHB YTD figure on Petitioner’s [ELS]s beginning in pay period 2025-23 is incorrect, because it includes an extra FEHB deduction.”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 2.  To support this assertion, SSA cites to ELS statements for pay period 2025-23 and pay period 2025-24 (CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 3-4) and SSA Ex. 4 (CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13d).  SSA Ex. 4 is Petitioner’s ELS for pay period 2025-25. The pay period 2025-25 ELS indicates that Petitioner’s salary was deducted in the amount of $303.61 for “Health Benefits” and shows a YTD deduction amount of $7,508.23.7  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13d.  This ELS also indicates that Petitioner’s salary was deducted for a “Current” amount of $0.00 and a YTD amount of  $303.61 for “Health Benefits Pre-Tax/Post-Tax Debt”.8  

Page 6

CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13d.  In SSA’s prehearing brief and its objection to Petitioner’s prehearing brief, counsel provides charts indicating that Petitioner’s salary was deducted in the amount $0.00 in pay periods 2025-22 and 2025-23 and $607.22 in pay period 2025-24, and argues that Petitioner owes a remaining debt of $303.61 due to a salary overpayment.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12 at 5; CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 2-3.  However, as discussed above, Petitioner’s ELS statements for pay period 2025-23 and pay period 2025-24, provided as documentary evidence and cited by SSA counsel, do not support SSA’s position.  Compare CRD Dkt. Entry No. 1b at 3-4 and CRD Dkt. Entry No. 18 at 2-3. 

Further, SSA has not provided a corrected ELS for pay period 2025-23, or explained any inaccuracies in the ELS included as documentary evidence.  Absent any explanation or amended documentation from SSA, SSA has not met its burden of proving the existence of a debt in the amount of $303.61 owed to SSA based on the documentary evidence.  

V. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, SSA has not proven the existence of a debt. Thus, the SSA may not proceed with offsetting Petitioner’s salary to recover $303.61 in accordance with this decision.  

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